We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Leicester City Council (202309827)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309827

Leicester City Council

27 August 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 response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. reports of noise transference from flats above, including sounds from a shower and a shared stack pipe.
    2. neighbours throwing rubbish into her garden.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord, who is a local authority. She lives in a ground floor 2-bedroom flat with her family.
  2. Between April and May 2023, the resident sent 2 emails to the landlord reporting several housing issues in and around her building. On 31 May 2023, she complained that, while some actions had been taken, she had not received a direct response to her reports. She stated she was unhappy that:
    1. the drainage sound when the neighbour above used their shower was loud and sometimes disturbed her family’s sleep.
    2. other tenants were throwing rubbish into her garden that she paid more rent for.
    3. there was antisocial behaviour (ASB) from neighbours, including children throwing rubbish, excessive noise, and drug use.
    4. tenants were not putting rubbish in the bins causing a pest problem.
    5. neighbours were breaching their tenancy agreements by having pets and not walking dogs on leads or picking up their mess.
    6. there were health and safety issues, including overgrown weeds.
  3. After the resident contacted us because she had not received a response, we asked the landlord to escalate the complaint in late-August 2023. It sent its stage 1 response on 1 September 2023. This said:
    1. the noise the resident described was from the “gulper pump” (shower pump) in the flat above and there was nothing it could do about it.
    2. a recent inspection of the estate found no litter or mess in the communal gardens, but it did find rubbish had not been properly thrown away in the bin area.
    3. the resident did not pay extra rent for a private garden as all gardens were communal.
    4. it had liaised with the local authority about the garden maintenance and the team confirmed they will be attending to it soon.
    5. a letter would be sent to all tenants about disposing of rubbish properly.
    6. the resident should report ASB to the community safety team who would investigate separately.
  4. On 9 September 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said she had found it difficult to do because no email address was provided and she was unable to log into her customer account. The resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She disputed the account that nothing could be done about the pump because she said the officer who inspected the problem said they would be back “to fix it”. She also said it had overlooked an aspect of her complaint about hearing neighbours using the toilet 2 floors up. She said the landlord had misunderstood that she was complaining about her private garden. The resident suggested that the officer who inspected the estate did not do so thoroughly. She said she had video evidence of who was responsible for the ASB reported previously.
  5. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 13 October 2023. It apologised for the problems the resident had escalating her complaint and confirmed changes had been made to its letter template. It also said that it had again inspected the pump and that the noise it was making was at the expected level. The landlord advised its initial response was correct that she did not pay extra for a garden. And repeated her need to report any ASB to the appropriate team. It advised it had taken action to get the grounds maintained and was regularly monitoring the problem of tenants not properly throwing rubbish away. The landlord said it did not have soundproofing in the building and that the noise she could hear would likely be from the shared soil stack that connected all properties.
  6. After the complaints process ended, the resident sent the landlord a recording of the noise and evidence that other tenants had private gardens. In response, the landlord completed further investigations and identified a possible repair to the shower. It also said it would investigate if the ground floor flats included gardens. The resident referred her complaint to this Service in January 2024 because she said the landlord had not resolved the noise disturbances. She also said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns about the garden. She said the noise from other flats disturbed her family’s sleep. The resident said she was seeking a practical resolution to the noise problem and clarification about use of the garden. Since then, the neighbour’s shower has been replaced but it is unknown if this has resolved the noise disturbance for the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident disputes that her tenancy does not include a private garden. The tenancy agreement makes no reference to the use and enjoyment of a garden, or a garden forming part of “the property”. It is beyond our remit to determine whether the tenancy agreement should include use and occupation of a garden. However, the resident may wish to seek independent advice, from an organisation like Citizens Advice, if she considers that such a right had been conferred. The focus of this investigation will be on whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s queries about the garden.

Noise disturbance

  1. The resident initially reported hearing a noise with her new neighbour’s shower on 19 April 2023. She later added that the drainage system was also noisy and that she believed it was connected to other issues with the sewers. It is not disputed that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports of noises on 25 August 2023. It considered the resident’s concerns, according to the stage 1 response from early September 2023, as a potential repair issue. This was appropriate given the resident said the noise was new and only happened after the flat above was renovated. She had also suggested there was possibly a broader, longstanding problem with the communal sewers or drains.
  2. According to the landlord’s website, it aims to complete routine repairs and/or inspect larger scale programmed works, such as to communal drains, within 10 working days. The landlord’s investigation was significantly delayed because it took it 86 working days after the resident’s initial report. This is a failing that the landlord did not acknowledged in either of its complaint responses.
  3. The evidence of the inspection shows it found no faults with the drainage system. And that the noise the resident described was believed to be from a shower pump, which it said was by nature “quite loud” and could not be changed. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings and advice of its repair operatives. However, there is no evidence, that we have seen, that it had inspected the shower pump or listened to the noise before reaching the conclusion that nothing could be done. As such, it has not evidenced that it did everything it could reasonably do to establish both the cause of the noise and whether it could be resolved. This was inappropriate.
  4. In her escalation request, the resident said the landlord had failed to address her concerns that she could hear other tenants using their toilets. However, we have seen no evidence that she raised this before. Even so, the landlord addressed this aspect in its stage 2 response and did so largely reasonably, given the type of noise she reported. It advised her that she could report “excessive noise” to its noise team to investigate. Importantly, it set her expectations that the noise may be considered to be from day to day living. And that it was unable to provide sound proofing. However, it would also have been reasonable for it to say it would explore an alternative solution if the noise was found to be excessive or disruptive. In our 2022 spotlight report on noise we encouraged landlord’s to consider if there were practical improvements or interventions that it could make, even where a noise is found to be from day to day living. That it did not was a shortfall.
  5. It was appropriate for the landlord to reinspect the shower because of the resident’s challenge that she had been told it could be repaired. She also reported the problem was affecting her family’s sleep and that she had concerns about the impact of this on their health. The records show this further inspection took place on 19 September 2023. As confirmed in the stage 2 response, it was found to be working and the noise was at a normal level. Its decision that there was no way to resolve the noise was reasonable, based on the evidence it had available at that time.
  6. Following the complaint, the resident sent video recordings of the noise of the shower pump on 20 October 2023. She said that it was impacting her family considerably and on a daily basis. The evidence shows the landlord acted appropriately in responding to the new evidence. It carried out further investigations and identified a possible solution. The landlord replaced the neighbour’s shower with a bath on 5 February 2024, after an earlier attempt to reduce the shower pump noise was unsuccessful. It is unknown if this resolved the noise disturbances because the resident did not respond to our request for an update. However, the landlord advised that it had received no further contact from her about this matter. If the resident is continuing to be affected by noise disturbances, she should contact the landlord so it can investigate the matter further.
  7. We are satisfied the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of noise disturbances during and after the complaints process. However, there was a delay in it investigating her report initially and the landlord took no responsibility for this. We have therefore found service failure in its overall response to this aspect. We have ordered it to pay compensation in line with our remedies guidance for cases where a level of distress has been experienced, but is not long lasting.

Gardens

  1. The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy states it aims to ensure its estates are “well maintained, attractive and clean” for its tenants. It states it will do this through regular inspections, taking action where there are evident breaches of tenancy, and liaising with other services it provides as a local authority. The policy also encourages tenants to report any issues so they can be investigated and appropriate action taken.
  2. In her April 2023 email, the resident reported neighbours were throwing rubbish into her private garden and allowing dogs to foul in communal garden areas. As these were potential breaches of the tenancy conditions, the landlord was required to inspect the estate and take appropriate action. We have seen no direct evidence showing if and when an inspection was completed. However, it sent a warning letter to tenants in the resident’s block on 23 May 2023. This advised the impact of breaching the condition of the tenancy to dispose of rubbish correctly. The records show the landlord’s officer tried to speak to the resident on 22 June 2023. While it took some action in response to the resident’s reports, the level of communication with her was poor. This was one of the reasons the resident gave for complaining and for contacting this Service. The landlord has not acknowledged or apologised for its communication failings. We have ordered that it does this.
  3. In the stage 1 response, the landlord reasonably addressed the resident’s concerns based on what she had complained about. This was that other tenants were littering in the garden she paid extra rent for and in the communal areas. The response explained that the gardens were communal and that she was not paying additional rent for a garden. It clarified at stage 2, in response to her challenge that the landlord had misunderstood her concern, that the garden area was not part of the resident’s property. It is supported by the tenancy agreement the resident signed which does not refer to a garden. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord, based on the information at the time, to conclude that the resident had not paid extra for a private garden.
  4. The evidence also supports that the landlord took action to address the litter problem. It inspected the estate on 22 August 2023. While it did not find rubbish or dog mess in the communal areas, it sent tenancy warning letters to all tenants on 31 August 2023. The landlord also said it had spoken to the neighbour the resident reported was responsible for throwing litter into the garden, although we have not seen a record to support this. In the circumstances, the landlord took some appropriate actions in response to the resident’s reports of littering.
  5. After the complaint, the resident sent the landlord an aerial view of the garden she believed was included with her property. She also said that other tenants had individual gardens. As the resident provided new evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to reinvestigate the matter. It said in a follow up response in November 2023 that it would respond again with its findings. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that it communicated an outcome on this. As such, we have ordered it to update the resident, unless it can evidence that it has already done so.
  6. Considering the above, we are broadly satisfied the evidence shows the landlord took some appropriate actions to investigate and address the resident’s reports of littering. As well as her evolving concerns about whether the garden was solely for her use. There was, however, service failure in its communication with the resident following her initial reports that the landlord has not acknowledged.

Complaint handling

  1. According to the landlord’s complaints policy at the time, it would escalate any “expression of dissatisfaction” through its complaints process. It would though distinguish between a complaint and a request for a service. The resident reported several issues with her estate in her first 2 emails and asked that they be dealt with by her housing officer. It was appropriate and, in line with the landlord’s approach, to manage her reports as requests for services and not as a formal complaint.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of being received, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. These timescales were compliant with our Complaint Handling Code 2022, which was in force at the time.
  3. When the resident contacted it again on 31 May 2023, she said she was unhappy that she had received no direct contact about the issues she had raised. It would have been reasonable, and in line with its complaints policy, for the landlord to escalate the matter. That it took the involvement of this Service was a failing.
  4. Not engaging with the resident caused her avoidable time and trouble. It also delayed the stage 1 response by 56 working days. The landlord did not acknowledge its failure to escalate the complaint or to contact the resident about her reports. As such, it missed an opportunity to put things right, including offering an apology.
  5. After our involvement, the evidence shows the landlord appropriately investigated the issues the resident had originally raised. The standard of the responses were largely appropriate as they explained its findings and decisions. This was both in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.
  6. In summary, the landlord followed some of its complaints procedure and took some appropriate actions. It however missed an opportunity to escalate a complaint and it failed to take accountability for this or seek to put things right. This led to time and trouble to the resident above what would be expected when making a complaint. We have therefore made a finding of service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. noise transference from flats above, including sounds from a shower and a shared stack pipe.
    2. neighbour’s throwing rubbish into her private garden.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must send us evidence that it has completed the following actions:
    1. apologised to the resident in writing for the failings in its communication and delays in carrying out investigations into the resident’s reports.
    2. paid compensation of £200, made up of:
      1. £100 for the distress caused to the resident by the delay in investigating the noise transference reports.
      2. £100 for the time and trouble from the failure to escalate a complaint.
    3. updated the resident with a position on whether her property includes a garden with explanations of its reasons.