Norwich City Council (202439923)

Decision
Case ID	202439923
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Norwich City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	9 January 2026

Background

The resident lived in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat from May 2010 to August 2025. He has learning difficulties and mental health issues. He reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) from two nearby properties (neighbour A and B) to the landlord. He complained about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB.
2. Associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

The landlord delayed creating an ASB case. It did not complete a risk assessment or action plan. It did not always contact the resident as agreed. It also failed to attend a meeting.

The associated complaint

The landlord delayed issuing its stage 1 response. It also did not address all aspects of the complaint in its stage 1 response. It delayed escalating the complaint to stage 2. It also did not offer an apology or any redress to acknowledge its complaint handling failures.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 06 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 made up as follows: £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for its failings in how it handled reports of ASB. £100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures. 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 06 February 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

06 February 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £300 made up as follows:

£200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for its failings in how it handled reports of ASB.
£100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.

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

06 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 May 2024 to 5 September 2024	The resident reported various types of ASB from 2 properties to the landlord.
9, 10 and 11 September 2024	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He said an appointment was meant to take place earlier, but the landlord did not attend. He said it did not tell him in advance the appointment would not go ahead, and it caused him stress and upset due to his bipolar disorder. He said the landlord had not contacted him every 2 weeks as agreed. He also said it allowed ASB to continue without taking action. He asked for compensation.
26 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said its ASB officer could not attend the meeting due to an unforeseen personal emergency. It said it informed him within an hour of the meeting time, which was the earliest opportunity. It declined his request for compensation and said it had acted reasonably. It said it would pass his case to a different ASB officer. It would also continue to progress the case and work with the police.
26 September 2024	The resident asked to escalate to stage 2 of the complaint process. He said he did not agree with the outcome. He said it had not addressed the issue of not contacting him every 2 weeks as agreed. He said he had experienced lots of stress due to his bipolar.
6 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It reiterated the ASB officer could not attend due to an unforeseen personal emergency. The officer had contacted him within an hour to explain and apologise. It provided updates on the ASB case. It apologised it did not always meet its commitment to contact the resident every 2 weeks. It said it would maintain regular contact going forward.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When the resident brought his complaint to us, he wanted the landlord to deal with the ASB. He also wanted compensation.
Events since the referral	The resident has since moved to another address. He told us he still wants compensation.

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	Reports of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

Under the landlord’s ASB policy, when it receives a report of ASB it will make an initial assessment of the severity, impact and nature of each report. It will contact the resident within 5 working days. It will then arrange an appropriate response, adopt a case management approach, and give a single point of contact. It says a high proportion of complaints can be resolved through prevention and early intervention. These measures include mediation, explaining what support it and other agencies could offer, warning letters, community protection warnings/notices, and multi-agency partnerships. It also states it can support residents with regular contact at agreed times.
When the resident reported ASB on 20 May 2024, he said neighbour A had lots of visitors. He said they used drugs and were always screaming, shouting, swearing, slamming, and banging inside the flat. He also reported neighbour A was about to fight another neighbour on an occasion and when he tried to intervene, neighbour A verbally abused him. The landlord determined the language met the definition of a hate incident/crime.
On 20 May 2024 the landlord reported a hate incident/crime to the police on the resident’s behalf. This was an appropriate measure. It also performed a risk assessment and determined the ASB was high risk. It then sent the resident details of an action plan. This said an ASB officer would contact him on a regular basis, update him with any relevant actions or decisions, make any relevant support referrals and discuss the case with relevant partners to agree a multi-agency response. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
The resident reported further ASB of lots of visitors coming and going in the early hours along with drug use on 27 and 28 May 2024. He also reported ASB from neighbour B of public drunkenness and fighting. There is no evidence the landlord completed a risk assessment or action plan for the reports of ASB about neighbour B. This is a failure.
The landlord visited neighbour A on 28 May 2024. It discussed the ASB and reminded neighbour A of their tenancy conditions. This was an appropriate action and in line with its ASB policy.
The police informed the landlord it visited neighbour A on 1 June 2024. It said it would continue to patrol the area and build evidence as best it could. It also reported there was a significant amount of noise coming from neighbour B’s property. However, there is no evidence the landlord took any action, which is inappropriate.
The landlord contacted the resident on 4 June 2024 to provide an update. The resident reported more ongoing ASB from neighbour A. He called back 2 days later and reported fighting between neighbour A and neighbour B. The landlord advised to call the police if he was concerned for anyone’s safety, and it emailed the police the following day with further information. This was in line with its commitment to discuss the case with relevant partners to agree a multi-agency response.
The resident continued to report ASB from neighbour A and B throughout the month of June 2024. There were discussions between the landlord and the police during that time, along with several visits made by the police to the property of neighbour A. The landlord tried to contact the resident within the appropriate timescale following each report. This was appropriate.
On 3 July 2024 the landlord emailed the resident and said a different ASB officer would be managing the cases for his reports about neighbour A and B. This suggests an ASB case was already open for neighbour B, but we have seen no evidence of that. This was therefore inappropriate.
On the same day the landlord held a meeting to discuss the ASB from neighbour A. It agreed a series of actions and measures to take to tackle the ASB. This was a positive step and was in line with its policy.
The resident continued to report ASB from neighbour A and B throughout the month of July 2024. There were discussions between the landlord and the police during that time, along with visits made by the police to the properties of neighbour A and B. The landlord tried to contact the resident within the appropriate timescale following each report. This was appropriate.
On 22 July 2024, the landlord emailed the resident and said he only had an ASB case setup for neighbour A and not for neighbour B. It said it would set up a separate ASB case for neighbour B. The resident had been reporting ASB from neighbour B since 27 May 2024. The delay to set up a case is a failure. This meant it had not completed any risk assessment or action plan in line with its policy.
The landlord issued a community protection warning to neighbour A on 25 July 2024. It informed them they were in breach of section 5 of their tenancy agreement. It said they needed to moderate their behaviour, and the warning would be in effect for 18 months. If they did not adhere to the warning, it would serve a community protection notice or take other enforcement actions. This was an appropriate action in line with its policy.
The resident continued to report ASB on 4, 5 and 6 August 2024. The landlord arranged to visit the resident on 14 August 2024 with his nurses to discuss the issues. It told him it was already discussing matters with the police, and it was taking actions in the background to address the ASB. It offered further support and he agreed to be referred to a support worker. This was a positive step and was in line with its policy.
The landlord wrote to neighbour A on 4 September 2024 and further warned them about reports of ASB. It said the community protection warning was still in force, and it would take further action if they failed to comply. This again was positive further action in line with its policies.
The resident reported more ASB on 21 August 2024. There is no evidence of the landlord responding or taking any action. This was not in line with its policy and is a failure.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 September 2024. He said he had not received any contact since the meeting of 14 August 2024. The ASB officer replied the same day and agreed to meet with him at his home at 3pm on 9 September 2024. The meeting failed to take place with no prior warning due to an unforeseen personal emergency. The ASB officer emailed to apologise 52 minutes after the appointment time for not attending. Although last minute unforeseen emergencies can and do happen, we understand the impact this would have had on the resident, due to his mental health problems.
Following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it assigned a new ASB officer. This was a reasonable action given the breakdown in relationship between the resident and the previous officer.
On 10 October 2024 the landlord issued a community protection notice to neighbour A. It placed several requirements on them such as limiting the number of visitors they could have to the property. It also limited the times they could receive visitors. It also made it clear drug use, loud noises and bad language were unacceptable. It said failure to comply would result in legal action being taken. This was appropriate and in line with its policy.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it continued to take progressively escalating action against neighbour A. It also facilitated a managed move for the resident to a bungalow.
In summary, the landlord delayed creating an ASB case for reports about neighbour B from 27 May to 22 July 2024. It did not complete a risk assessment or action plan for the ASB reports about neighbour B. It did not contact the resident following his reports of 21 August 2024. It also failed to attend the meeting of 9 September 2024.
As a result of the failures highlighted above, we have found maladministration. We order the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation. This is to recognise the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to appropriately handle reports of ASB. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The associated complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out clear expectations for how landlords should manage complaints. At stage 1 of its complaints process, landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It should issue a response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 of its complaints process, landlords must acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days. It should issue a response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord’s complaint policy is compliant with the Code.
The resident submitted complaints on 9, 10 and 11 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 September 2024. This is compliant with the Code and its own complaint policy.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 11 working days later. This was 1 day outside of the prescribed timescales and would have had some minimal impact.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not address all aspects of the complaint. The Code states that landlords are expected to respond to all aspects of the complaint as defined by the resident. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns that it had not contacted him every 2 weeks as agreed. This omission was inappropriate and is a failure of the dispute resolution principles to be fair, learn and put things right.
Following the resident’s escalation request of 26 September 2024, the landlord did not acknowledge it until 22 October 2024. This was 18 working days later, 13 days outside of the prescribed timescale. This is a failure.
The landlord then issued its stage 2 complaint response 11 working days later. This is not compliant with the Code as the overall time for responding to stage 2 was significantly exceeded. Although it dealt with all aspects of the complaint, it did not apologise for not doing so in its stage 1 response. It also incorrectly stated the resident asked to escalate his complaint on 16 October 2024. It therefore did not acknowledge or apologise for its delay escalating the complaint, which is inappropriate.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling was not compliant with the Code or its own policy at both stages of the complaint process. There was a minor delay issuing its stage 1 response. It also did not address all aspects of the complaint in its stage 1 response. It delayed escalating his complaint to stage 2. It also did not offer an apology or any redress to acknowledge its complaint handling failures.
We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered it to pay the resident £100 in compensation. This amount reflects the cumulative impact of its poor complaint handling, and the time and trouble caused to the resident.

Learning

The landlord delayed creating an ASB case for the reports about neighbour B. It also did not complete a risk assessment or action plan. It should ensure staff are familiar with its ASB policy and the importance of completing risk assessments and action plans.
The landlord delayed issuing its stage 1 complaint response. It did not address all aspects of the complaint. It also delayed escalating the complaint. It should ensure staff are familiar with the requirements of the Code, particularly the importance of responding within the prescribed timescales and addressing all aspects of the complaint.