Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Leeds City Council (202450646)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202450646

Leeds City Council

19 September 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around staff conduct in relation to a report of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord has documented that the resident experiences mental health issues.
  2. On 13 February 2025 the landlord’s staff visited the resident to discuss an incident reported by the resident’s neighbour.
  3. On 21 February 2025 the resident complained to the landlord about the actions of its staff. She said she was unhappy because they had:
    1. Not made an appointment to come and see her.
    2. Made accusations regarding her son’s behaviour.
    3. Called the police as they believed the resident had left her children unattended.
    4. Threatened her tenancy, saying that she should terminate her tenancy.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 March 2025. It said:
    1. It apologised for the behaviour of its staff and that she was asked to sign a tenancy termination. This was against its ASB policy and should not have happened.
    2. The staff should have fully investigated any allegations made before potentially arranging to speak to the resident.
    3. Its staff has a duty to report any potential safeguarding concerns. As they did not know when the resident was returning to her property, they reported the situation to the police.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 7 March 2025 in a call to the landlord. In the call, she said:
    1. She accepted the landlord’s apology.
    2. She was unhappy because she felt she should have been offered more support from the landlord. She said the ASB issues with her neighbour had been ongoing for some time.
    3. She wanted to move or her neighbour to move as a solution to these issues.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 12 March 2025. It said:
    1. It apologised for how the visit on 13 February 2025 had been conducted.
    2. Specific members of staff were available to provide the resident with help and support in relation to the reports of ASB going forward.
    3. It would contact her neighbour, as the resident had agreed to mediation.
    4. The resident could complete a housing application if she wanted to move.
    5. It offered the resident £200 due to the incorrect procedure being followed.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to us on 13 March 2025 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She has said that as an outcome she would like to be compensated. She also wanted the landlord to provide training to its staff so that this did not happen to anyone else.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy (the policy) says if a reported concern meets its definition of ASB then it will respond to these reports with the opening of an ASB case. When it investigates an ASB case, the landlord will consider the vulnerabilities and needs of all individuals involved in a case. The policy also sets out the potential actions the landlord might take if ASB is reported to it, this includes offering mediation or addressing the issue as part of a tenancy enforcement procedure.
  2. The landlord’s Compliments and Complaints Policy on its website as of the date of this report, says that complaints about members of staff will be investigated and appropriate action then taken.
  3. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction in relation to 2 members of the landlord’s staff who made a visit to her property on 13 February 2025.We will not form a view on whether the staff members’ actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, our role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it.
  4. On 12 February 2025 the landlord received a report of an incident between the resident and her neighbour. The landlord attended the resident’s property the next day to speak to her about this incident. It did not assess whether the incident met its definition of ASB and it did not open an ASB case before the visit. The landlord’s policy lists actions that it could take if ASB is identified. It does not list asking the resident to sign a tenancy termination as one of these actions. The landlord’s actions here were inappropriate and not in line with its policy.
  5. The landlord recognised that its ASB policy had not been followed before the resident reported her concerns to it. The landlord identified this on the day of the visit, 13 February 2025. It spoke to the members of staff involved with the visit and about their duty to follow the correct process. As part of its response to the error, the landlord ensured further training for all staff on following the correct policies and procedures. The landlord investigated the issue and spoke to the members of staff involved. This was a reasonable response from the landlord and it is a positive that the landlord had identified this before the resident made her complaint.
  6. In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised to the resident and acknowledged that the correct process had not been followed. It said it should not have threatened the tenancy of the resident. The landlord committed to supporting the resident going forward and offered £200 compensation. The landlord had already investigated the issue, identified its failings and taken action to prevent them from happening again. Its offer of compensation was in line with its compensation policy. The landlord’s response was appropriate in the circumstances.
  7. In her stage 2 complaint escalation on 7 March 2025, the resident said she was unhappy as she felt more could have been done to resolve the ASB issues she has had with her neighbour. The landlord referenced the issues, made clear the support it was offering going forward and tried to arrange for mediation. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided more detail on how it handled the historic ASB issues. However, ensuring the resident knew what support was available and offering mediation was a reasonable response in the circumstances.
  8. In conclusion, the landlord quickly recognised that it had not followed its policy and took action to prevent this from happening again. Apologising to the resident and offering compensation was an appropriate response in the circumstances. The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with it’s financial remedies guidance when a customer has been “inconvenienced/upset”. The amount offered is also within the range of financial redress recommended in our own Remedies Guidance for failings which adversely affected the resident. We therefore find that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This recognises that there was a failing by the landlord, but it identified and took action on its own initiative to remedy the issue.
  9. There is evidence that the resident initially refused the offer of compensation. We are therefore recommending that the landlord makes its compensation offer of £200 to the resident again.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around staff conduct in relation to a report of ASB.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the resident the £200 offered during the complaints process if this has not already been paid. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around staff conduct in relation to a report of ASB is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.