City of Lincoln Council (202214323)

Decision
Case ID	202214323
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Lincoln Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	24 February 2026

Background

1. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports, including allegations of harassment, intimidation, and a racially aggravated assault involving former neighbours. She said the landlord failed to take appropriate actions, respond to her reports, or support her adequately, which led to a management transfer and financial loss.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of ASB from a neighbour.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the handling of ASB reports from a neighbour.
   2. Service failure in the handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of ASB reports

4. Despite an appropriate initial response and the later approval of a management transfer, the landlord did not maintain effective case management during the intervening period. It failed to provide clear communication, demonstrate structured escalation, or evidence consideration of the range of tools available to address sustained reports. These shortcomings undermined confidence in its handling of the case.

The handling of the complaint

5. The landlord did not respond the stage 2 complaint in line with the timescales set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It also failed to acknowledge the delay or offer appropriate redress for the inconvenience caused.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior staff member, such as a head of service or director. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 24 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 made up as follows: £200 to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by its service failures in its handling of her ASB reports. £100 to recognise the inconvenience caused by the delays to respond to the stage 2 complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 24 March 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord reviews the resident’s concerns about costs incurred in moving property and the allegation that a staff member made untrue statements, if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 October 2022	The resident contacted our Service to advise that the landlord had not responded to her complaint. The complaint She said her former neighbours had allegedly dealt drugs, damaged her car, and racially abused and physically assaulted her partner. Despite moving to a new property, the same individuals continued to attend her new address to intimidate her. The landlord had taken no action and had not responded to her reports.   We referred the complaint to the landlord.
26 October 2022	The resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord. She said: She had experienced ASB, bullying, and harassment for 2 years. The situation had made her extremely unwell and led to a hospital admission. She had followed the correct procedures, including completing diary sheets and reporting criminal matters to the police, but felt all parties had let her down. The landlord had accused her of behaviour that was untrue. She was forced to move to another property, which caused her to incur additional costs.
31 October 2022	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: The resident’s housing officer kept in regular contact with her while managing her ASB reports. It worked closely with the police and other support agencies. The police closed the assault allegation because the resident’s partner did not attend the police station to provide a statement. It required evidence of criminal activity, or a charge or conviction, before it could take legal or tenancy enforcement action against the alleged perpetrators. It acknowledged the resident had completed diary sheets regularly and made frequent contact by phone and email. It agreed to a management transfer following the resident’s request and the impact she reported on her mental health. It confirmed it had completed the Community Trigger process and shared the panel’s outcome with the resident. While the panel acknowledged the reported impact on the resident, it found there was insufficient evidence to take formal enforcement action.
21 December 2023	We contacted the landlord to advise that the resident wished to escalate her complaint. We explained that in November 2022 she had sent her escalation to an incorrect landlord email address, which was why the landlord had not received it. The escalation complaint She Said: She moved to another property after the police confirmed there had been a racially aggravated attack on her partner. The alleged perpetrator had been charged and was awaiting sentencing. The landlord failed to respond to several emails. Her housing officer told her support worker, in a meeting, that the resident was part of the problem and that matters had calmed down since she moved. She found these comments unacceptable and considered them a breach of confidentiality. She wanted the landlord to apologise and reimburse the costs she incurred when moving. She said the alleged perpetrators continued to attend her new property.
20 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said: It was satisfied that the information in its stage 1 complaint response was accurate and that it had handled the resident’s ASB reports in line with its policies and procedures. It had no record of any new ASB reports at the resident’s new address. It was waiting for evidence from the resident, including copies of unanswered emails, details of moving costs, further information about the housing officer’s comments, and more details about the recent ASB.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because she disagreed with the landlord’s final response and remained dissatisfied with its handling of her concerns.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of ASB reports from a neighbour
Finding	Maladministration

Initial response

6. In the year leading up to the resident’s complaint, she made regular reports of ASB. The initial report in September 2021 said that her neighbour had been racially abusive, threatened violence, and involved other neighbours. These allegations met the landlord’s definition of ASB under its tenancy agreement, which prohibits harassment, hate crime, threats of violence, and conduct that causes alarm, distress or nuisance to others. The landlord therefore had a clear duty to assess and respond to the report.
7. The landlord carried out a risk assessment within a week of the report. Its ASB policy requires it to assess the severity of allegations, consider any vulnerability, and decide whether the matter may involve criminal behaviour. By completing this assessment promptly, the landlord acted in line with its policy and demonstrated that it treated the allegations with appropriate seriousness.
8. The landlord also provided the resident with diary sheets. Its ASB policy identifies diary sheets as a standard investigative tool and expects complainants to provide evidence where possible. Providing these within the first week supported evidence gathering and was consistent with its stated approach.
9. The landlord reviewed video footage submitted by the resident and concluded that both parties had contributed to the situation. Its ASB policy requires investigations to be objective and conducted without bias. By reviewing the evidence and discussing its findings with the resident, the landlord followed a fair and evidence-based approach.
10. The landlord did not create a written action plan. However, its policy allows action plans to be verbally agreed. The evidence shows it discussed the situation with the resident and advised her to avoid further confrontations while it monitored matters. Given the early stage of the case and the evidence available at that time, this was a proportionate initial response.
11. The landlord has not shown that it contacted the neighbour or opened a separate counter-allegation case at the time. Its policy allows it to consult all parties as part of an investigation. However, the resident had expressed concern that contact with the neighbour could escalate matters. In those circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to take a cautious and proportionate approach while it assessed the evidence.

Ongoing reports / Communication

12. Throughout October and November 2021, the resident continued to submit diary sheets describing more than 14 incidents of alleged intimidating behaviour from her neighbour. She also recorded that she felt anxious, bullied and stressed. The landlord’s ASB policy requires it to keep cases under review and assess ongoing risk, including the impact on the complainant.
13. The volume of reports and the expressed emotional impact should have prompted an active review of risk and a clear update to the resident. The landlord has not evidenced that it carried out a further risk assessment or recorded any review during this period. This fell short of its obligation to actively review and manage risk.
14. On 2 occasions during this period, the resident asked for a call back to discuss the incidents. She expressed frustration when this did not happen. The landlord’s ASB policy commits to maintaining regular contact and agreeing communication methods and frequency. The evidence does not show that it responded to those requests or explained its position. This was not in line with its communication commitments. The absence of contact was likely to increase the resident’s distress and undermine confidence in the landlord’s handling of the case.
15. In addition, the landlord did not set out what action it was taking, or not taking, in response to the continued reports. The Housing Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning on ASB highlights that landlords should provide clear updates during ASB investigations, manage expectations, and explain decisions, particularly where they decide not to escalate action. Without this, the resident could not understand the status of her case or what steps remained available. This lack of clarity was inconsistent with good practice in ASB handling and undermined a transparent and resident-focused approach.
16. The resident also stated that she had reported matters to the police. The landlord’s ASB policy allows for partnership working with other agencies where behaviour may amount to criminal conduct. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the police, sought information, or considered a joint approach during this period. Where allegations include threats of violence, effective partnership working is an important safeguard. In the absence of evidence of liaison, the landlord has not demonstrated that it fully explored available avenues.

Escalatory actions

17. Between March and June 2022, the resident recorded over 80 further incidents of alleged ASB. These were of a similar nature to her previous reports but also included the neighbour spitting on her car and throwing rubbish behind her flat. The landlord completed a further risk assessment (April 2022), which was appropriate.
18. However, risk assessment should inform action. The records do not show how the outcome of that assessment shaped the landlord’s next steps, whether it altered the level of intervention, or whether it triggered escalations. Without linking risk to action, the assessment had limited practical effect.
19. The landlord’s records refer to visits to the resident to discuss neighbourhood issues during this period. However, there is very little detail about what was discussed, what advice was given beyond continuing diary sheets, or what actions the landlord agreed to take. Good ASB case management requires clear and accurate records of conversations, decisions and agreed actions. This ensures accountability, continuity and transparency.
20. It also creates an evidential trail should formal enforcement become necessary. In a case involving over 80 reported incidents, reliance on undocumented verbal discussions was insufficient. The landlord should have recorded detailed notes and confirmed next steps in writing.
21. The landlord’s ASB policy allows it to use a range of non-legal tools before formal enforcement. These can include warning letters, acceptable behaviour agreements, mediation, good neighbour reminders, or increased estate presence. Where behaviour cannot be clearly attributed to 1 individual, landlords can still issue general warning communications, carry out estate inspections, install signage, or take environmental measures.
22. The landlord has not evidenced that it considered or attempted these proportionate interventions, nor did it explain to the resident why they were unsuitable. This suggests limited progression of the case despite sustained reporting.

Community trigger

23. The resident requested a community trigger (April 2022), also known as an ASB case review. Home Office guidance on the GOV.UK website, states that, when a review is requested, the agencies involved must decide whether the local threshold has been met and communicate that decision to the ‘victim’. Where a review proceeds, the local procedure should set out clear timescales in which the review will be undertaken. The landlord later provided an outcome in October 2022, which shows the process was progressed.
24. However, the records provided do not show that the landlord acknowledged the April 2022 request at the time it was made, confirmed whether the threshold had been met, or explained the process and likely timescales. There is also no evidence of any interim update between April and October 2022 about the review.
25. The case review process is intended to reassure victims of persistent ASB that their concerns will receive multi-agency scrutiny. Clear communication at the outset and during the review is therefore important. During the period awaiting the outcome, the resident continued to submit reports and raised a formal complaint. This suggests she may not have understood how the request was being progressed or felt confident that her concerns were being addressed. In the absence of recorded updates, the landlord has not demonstrated that it managed expectations or provided reassurance in line with good ASB case management practice.

Management transfer

26. The landlord’s records show that counter-allegations were also made against the resident. While the detail is not relevant to this assessment, their existence meant the landlord was required to take an impartial approach and consider the accounts of both parties. This supports its earlier cautious case management and reinforces that the situation involved mutual allegations rather than a 1-sided complaint.
27. Throughout the case, the resident stated on several occasions that she did not wish to remain in the property and felt unable to continue living there. In July 2022, tensions appeared to escalate further following an alleged assault involving the resident’s partner. The landlord agreed to a management transfer, with police support.
28. Management transfers can be an appropriate tool where neighbour disputes have become entrenched and where separation is considered the most practical way to de-escalate matters. On the information available, the decision to grant a transfer was a reasonable step aimed at reducing ongoing conflict across the estate.

Tenancy action

29. Following the alleged assault, the landlord informed the resident that it would await the police outcome before considering action against her neighbour. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise and clarify that the police were responsible for investigating potential criminal conduct. However, the landlord also advised that it could not pursue tenancy breach action unless there was a conviction.
30. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out a range of behaviours that may result in legal action for breach of tenancy. While criminal convictions are references within the tenancy terms, they are listed as 1 example of conduct that may amount to breach, rather than as a requirement before action can be taken.
31. Tenancy enforcement operates under the civil standard of proof and does not automatically require a criminal conviction. It was therefore important that the landlord’s communication accurately reflected the scope of its powers under the tenancy agreement.
32. While the landlord could decide that it did not have sufficient evidence to act at that stage, clear and precise language was important so the resident could understand what action was legally possible and what depended on the outcome of criminal proceedings.

After transfer

33. In October 2022, shortly after moving to a new property, the resident reported in her formal complaints that the individuals involved in the previous dispute were visiting her new home to intimidate her. The records do not show that the landlord opened a new ASB case or formally recorded a decision about how these reports would be handled. If the information provided within the complaint correspondence was unclear or lacked detail, the landlord should have made further enquiries to establish whether a new ASB investigation was required. There is no evidence that it did so.
34. This represented a missed opportunity to provide reassurance and ensure that the management transfer had achieved its intended purpose of reducing conflict.
35. However, we acknowledge that when the landlord later sought further information from the resident in February 2024, it recorded that it had not received additional reports in the intervening period. In those circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat any further concerns raised at that stage as a new report and to assess them accordingly.
36. In addition, the resident raised concerns about costs incurred in moving property and alleged that a staff member had made untrue statements. These were distinct from the earlier ASB reports and amounted to new issues requiring separate consideration.
37. It was reasonable for the landlord to request further information and supporting evidence before determining the resident’s claim for reimbursement or investigating the allegation about staff conduct.
38. Given the passage of time since these issues were raised, it is possible that the landlord has since considered further information. If it has not already done so, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to review this matter. 

Compensation

39. The landlord has not provided a copy of its compensation policy. We are therefore unable to assess the circumstances in which it considers compensation appropriate under its own framework. The evidence shows that it did not offer the resident compensation during the handling of her complaint.
40. As set out above, we have identified service failures in the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports. These include poor communication, a lack of clear information about what action was being taken or could no be taken, no evidence of structured escalation despite sustained reporting, limited recorded use or consideration of non-legal interventions, and an absence of clear explanation where certain tools were not pursued.
41. These shortcomings occurred over a 4-month period and would reasonably have caused the resident distress and frustration. The volume and seriousness of the reports meant that clear communication and visible case progression were particularly important. While the landlord cannot be held responsible for the behaviour alleged, it is responsible for the standard of its response. The identified failures relate to the quality of that response.
42. We acknowledge that once matters escalated in July 2022, the landlord approved a management transfer. This was a decisive step and the prompt agreement to a transfer was appropriate and mitigated the ongoing impact of the situation. We have taken this positive action into account when determining redress.
43. Taking all factors into account, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by its service failures in its case management and communication. This aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which suggests awards between £100 to £600 where a landlord’s failings have adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

44. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
    1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the Code’s timescales.
    2. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 14 working days after we referred the resident’s complaint to it and allowed 5 days to acknowledge. This was outside the Code’s expectation that landlords respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
    3. While the Code allows landlords to agree extensions where responses will fall outside these timescales, the landlords records do not show that it informed the resident of any delay or agreed a revised response date. As a result, the landlord did not meet the Code’s expectations for timely and transparent complaint handling.
    4. The resident submitted her stage 2 complaint in November 2022. However, the evidence shows she sent this to an incorrect landlord email address. There is no evidence that she followed this up or contacted the landlord again about escalation during that period.
    5. In those circumstances, the landlord could not reasonably have been expected to progress the complaint at that time. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to treat the complaint as a stage 2 escalation when it was notified by our Service in December 2023.
    6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 40 working days after our notification. This was outside the Code’s expectation that landlords respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
    7. The stage 2 response did not apologise for the delay or offer any compensation for the time and trouble this may have caused. The Code requires landlords to acknowledge failings and provide redress where appropriate. By not doing so, the landlord did not fully meet the Code’s expectations for putting things right.
    8. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 to recognise the inconvenience caused by the delay at stage 2.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) / Communication

45. The ASB records were generally detailed and showed good day-to-day updates. However, this case highlights the importance of clearly linking risk assessments to recorded actions, documenting the rationale where enforcement tools are not pursued, and providing consistent written updates during prolonged ASB cases. These gaps made it harder for the landlord to evidence the actions it took at important stages of the case. The landlord should also take note of the communication failures discussed in this report.