Melton Borough Council (202423492)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423492

Melton Borough Council

30 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of a data breach.
2. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. allegations of criminal damage against the resident.
4. tenancy warning letters issued to the resident.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local council. The property is a 2-bedroom flat within a supported living facility for vulnerable and older adults. The resident has lived there with his wife since 2021. Mr A also lives within the block. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 24 June 2024 the resident complained to the landlord, he said:
1. the housing officer had lied to him, including when they said that would take witness statements regarding an allegation of criminal damage about the resident made by Mr A.
2. the police had advised they were taking no further action so his reputation had been tarnished without cause.
3. He had reported ASB by Mr A previously and this had not improved. Mr A was slamming the laundry room door, stomping in the corridor, and misusing drugs and alcohol.
On 28 June 2024 the landlord and a police officer visited the resident. On 2 July 2024 it followed up the meeting with an email which said:
1. Mr A’s drug use should be reported to the police.
2. It had offered the resident a recording app for his phone to record ASB incidents by Mr A, which the resident declined.
3. The resident needed to remove the camera he had set up as it had received complaints from other residents about this and it felt the camera was antagonising Mr A.
4. It had asked the resident to be mindful in the conversations he had with other residents in the block, as a member of the landlord’s staff had raised concerns over the comments made by the resident about her.
On 12 July 2024 the landlord issued the resident with 2 tenancy warning letters. One for the way he spoke about the member of staff (TWL 1), and one for his failure to remove the camera (TWL 2). The letters advised that the resident’s actions were a breach of his tenancy.
On 22 July 2024 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. It understood that the resident was upset by the allegation of criminal damage and reiterated that it was right to have reported this to the police.
2. The police would have been responsible for gathering witness statements, not the housing officer.
3. The housing officer had spoken to Mr A about his behaviour and it encouraged the resident to keep reporting this.
4. It had passed the allegations of drug use onto the police.
On 14 July 2024 the landlord held a residents’ meeting which was attended by local councillors to discuss issues in the block, which included Mr A’s behaviour. On 1 August 2024 the landlord wrote to all residents and advised that allegations of criminal behaviour had been passed to the police. It also advised that the conduct of some residents at the meeting had been “unacceptable” which had meant the meeting had ended early. It explained that residents were not permitted to set up recording devices in the communal areas.
On 2 August 2024 the landlord issued the resident with a third tenancy warning letter (TWL 3) for his conduct at the residents’ meeting. It explained that the resident and his wife had behaved aggressively and disrespectfully towards the landlord’s staff, other residents, and the local councillors. It asked the resident to not make any further contact with Mr A.
On 4 August 2024 the resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage 2. The resident stated that TWL 1 contained factual inaccuracies and that others involved had not received this warning. The resident asserted that he had permission to install the camera mentioned in TWL 2 but this was not put in writing by the housing officer. He also stated he felt victimised by TWL 3 as other attendees of the meeting had not received a warning. He advised he did not feel that the landlord had followed its own processes when addressing Mr A’s behaviour, in particular when Mr A made an allegation of criminal damage against the resident.
The landlord responded on 29 August 2024. It stated its housing officer had taken appropriate action regarding the alleged criminal damage and it had no more information to share because the police had discontinued the investigation. It said there was no evidence that the housing officer had lied to the resident and accepted there had been misunderstandings and the relationship had broken down, so it assigned a new housing officer to the resident. The landlord requested more time to respond to the resident’s complaint about the tenancy warning letters.
On 9 September 2024 the landlord provided its final response about the tenancy warning letters. It said
1. The factual inaccuracy the resident raised regarding TWL 1 did not change its position on the matter, the resident’s behaviour had caused distress.
2. There was no evidence the resident had permission to install the camera and TWL 2 would not be revoked.
3. The resident’s behaviour in the meeting had been unacceptable, its staff member had used their professional judgement when deciding to issue TWL 3. It did not have any evidence that the resident had been victimised.
The resident referred his complaint to us because he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response.

Jurisdiction

The resident’s reports of a data breach

The resident raised concerns to us regarding an alleged data breach by the landlord. This was in relation to sharing his personal information with a third party outside of the landlord’s organisation and the information being used by a third party in an altercation with the resident in the communal area.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states that we may not investigate complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent body, which has the power to investigate data breaches and to assess whether an organisation has failed to comply with the relevant data handling provisions.
This resident’s complaint is about an alleged data breach and the landlord’s decision making around its handling of that alleged breach. As such, the complaint is outside of our jurisdiction. If the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord responded to his concerns about the alleged data breach, he may wish to visit the website of the ICO and seek further information about how to progress his complaint. The website contains information and advice about what to do if you are concerned about how an organisation has handled your data.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Some of the evidence we have received relates to events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, we consider it is fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response.
Some of the evidence provided includes recollections of conversations between the resident, members of the landlord’s staff, and other residents’ in the block. While we do not doubt the recollections, we rely on contemporaneous evidence to investigate complaints. It is difficult for us to verify conversations that we do not have clear records of. This investigation will focus on the written evidence available to us.
While we understand the resident’s concerns about his reputation as a result of the allegation of criminal damage, it would not be for us to determine if defamation had taken place or if there had been reputational damage. This would require the judgement of a court. We may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The resident may wish to seek independent advice if he wishes to pursue this part of his complaint.

The resident’s reports of ASB

It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB by Mr A. We will not determine whether the reported behaviour was happening or not. Our role is to assess whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will categorise reports of ASB by severity. Category A complaints include hate-related incidents, physical violence, threatening behaviour and drug production or supply and the policy states that it will make contact within 1 working day. Category B complaints include verbal abuse, harassment, alcohol-related ASB, noise nuisance and criminal behaviours, the landlord will make contact within 3 working days.
The landlord’s policy states it will always offer a face-to-face meeting with complainants to discuss their reports and provide a written acknowledgment when a case is opened. It will always complete a risk assessment and an action plan which will include details of what it will do to resolve the matter and what timescales it will work to. The landlord will keep clear records and gather evidence, it will take steps to resolve the matter including mediation, referral to support services, good neighbour agreements, and warnings. It will also work with partner agencies including the police.
The evidence provided shows that the resident reported several instances of behaviour by Mr A which fell within the landlord’s ASB policy. We can see that the landlord took some appropriate action in May and June 2024, but this did not stop the ASB and the resident continued to report it.
There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB within the timeframes set out in its policy. Additionally, we cannot see any evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports, completed a risk assessment, or completed an action plan. While the landlord does appear to have visited the resident, there is no clear record of what was discussed or how the landlord intended to address the resident’s concerns. This was inappropriate because it was not in line with its policy.
The landlord did engage with the police in relation to the reports of drug use, this was appropriate. It also offered the resident a recording app for his phone to gather evidence which was a reasonable step. The resident provided the landlord with recording from his door bell camera but it unclear whether the landlord considered this evidence.
The resident was evidently distressed by the ongoing ASB. The landlord did not keep the resident updated on the progress of its investigation or offer the resident any reassurance that it was taking the matter seriously. It did not offer any support or signposting to support agencies which was inappropriate because it was not in line with its policy.
The resident provided evidence to the landlord including a police report which alleged that Mr A had offered drugs to a member of the landlord’s staff and made threats to slash the resident’s tyres. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up on this in line with its policy. Given that there was an allegation involving a member of its staff, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss this with the individual involved to gather evidence and support any action it planned to take.
In its complaint responses, the landlord told the resident it had fitted the laundry room door with softeners so that Mr A could not slam it. While we understand that the landlord took action to mitigate the impact on the resident, it did not address the cause of the issue. The landlord missed its opportunity to identify that it had not followed its own policy when responding to the reports of ASB and to put things right. It did not provide the resident with details of how it would address his concerns to manage his expectations.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB amount to maladministration because the landlord did not follow its own policy when addressing the resident’s reports. It did not conduct a risk assessment or create an action plan to demonstrate it was taking the matter seriously. It did not keep the resident up to date, offer support, or provide assurances that it was investigating the matter. The resident was distressed by the ASB and inconvenienced by the landlord not taking sufficient action.
When deciding what remedies are most appropriate, we have considered our remedies guidance which is available on our website. The distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the landlord’s failure to act in line with its policy are aggravating factors. Having this in mind, we award £300 compensation for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Allegations of criminal damage against the resident

The resident has expressed frustration that an allegation of criminal damage against him was reported to the police who then took no further action, and felt his reputation was damaged without cause. The resident felt that the landlord should have acted further, in particular that the housing officer should have taken a witness statement from the reporter to help determine the credibility of the report.
The resident has outlined that the housing officer told him she would take witness statements, including from the individual who reported the criminal damage. There is no evidence available to support the resident’s position so it is not possible for us to confirm what was or was not said.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will refer allegations of criminal behaviour to the police, who will always lead on criminality in its area of operations. It was reasonable for the landlord to pass the report of criminal damage to the police. Gathering evidence in relation to alleged criminal offences is the responsibility of the police, rather than the landlord. The landlord explained its position to the resident clearly which was appropriate.
In light of this, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of allegations of criminal damage against the resident.

Tenancy warning letters issued to the resident

We understand that the resident is unhappy with the tenancy warning letters he has received. We will not determine whether the alleged tenancy breaches happened. Our role is to assess the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about the letters, and whether it acted reasonably in the circumstances.
The resident’s tenancy agreement outlines unacceptable behaviour as:
1. Anything that causes or is likely to cause a nuisance, harassment, alarm, or distress.
2. Anything that interferes with the peace, comfort, and wellbeing of other people.
3. Harassing, acting in an abusive, offensive, or threatening manner towards anyone in the locality.
TWL 1 concerned an allegation that the resident had been overheard making derogatory comments about a member of the landlord’s staff. When the resident raised concerns about the factual accuracy of some of the information in the letter, the landlord explained that the points raised did not change the overall allegation and provided its reasoning. This was an appropriate response. The landlord cited its tenancy agreement so that it was clear what the basis of its warning was.
The resident asked why he has received TWL 1, but other residents involved had not. While we understand that the landlord cannot provide the resident with information regarding other residents, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained its reasoning so that the resident’s expectations could be managed, this was a shortcoming by the landlord but it did not change the overall outcome. The resident was likely to have been frustrated by the landlord’s explanation.
The resident’s position is that he should not have been issued with TWL 2 because he said he had verbal permission from the landlord. We have not seen any documented evidence to support this position and the landlord has denied permission was given. In TWL 2, the landlord clearly explained why it considered the camera to be a breach of the resident’s tenancy, it also provided the legal basis for its decision. This was appropriate because the landlord explained is position clearly.
When the resident stated he felt victimised by the landlord and by TWL 3, the landlord quoted its tenancy agreement and its tenancy management policy to explain why the resident had received the letter. The landlord advised it had used its “professional judgement” when deciding to issue the letter and gave its reasoning, which was appropriate.
In its complaint response, the landlord maintained its position on each letter. It outlined what evidence it had considered when making its decision which was reasonable.
We find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its tenancy warning letters issued to the resident. This is because the landlord explained its position to the resident clearly and provided justification.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a data breach is outside of our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of allegations of criminal damage against the resident
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the tenancy warning letters issued to the resident

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence to us that it has:
1. Apologised to the resident in writing for the failures noted in this determination.
2. Paid the resident a total compensation of £300 to acknowledge and redress the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This amount should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent or debt owed.