Mansfield District Council (202527837)

Background

1. The resident lives by himself in a one-bedroom flat in a low-rise block. He contacted the landlord in 2023 regarding his neighbour’s use of drugs, which was affecting his enjoyment of his home.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not carry out risk assessments in respect of the resident’s ASB reports. It failed to take any interventions or preventative actions in response to reports made in June 2023 and August 2024. In respect of subsequent reports in 2025, it mis-managed his expectations about taking tenancy enforcement action.
6. The landlord dealt with multiple complaints from the resident about its handling of his ASB reports. It failed to conduct sufficiently robust investigations into the resident’s complaints. Consequently, it did not identify its various shortcomings or offer appropriate redress. Overall, it did not use its complaints process as an effective tool for resolving the resident’s concerns.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. This investigation has not assessed whether the reported ASB has taken place, nor does it apportion blame. Instead, it has focused on whether or not the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports reasonably in all the circumstances.
8. The landlord has provided us with its ASB and hate crime procedure dated November 2024. This includes its commitments to:
   1. A victim-centred, early intervention and prevention approach.
   2. Ensuring legislation is applied correctly and all legal requirements are met by utilising the range of tools and powers available.
   3. Resolving incidents of ASB before they escalate, intervening appropriately where it can, and enforcing the tenancy conditions when required.
   4. Where possible, putting into place appropriate support mechanisms for both the victims and perpetrators of ASB, particularly where they are vulnerable.
9. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps us to understand its actions and decision-making at the time. If there are disputed facts and no supporting evidence, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
10. In this case, there are several gaps and inconsistencies in the evidence provided to us bythe landlord. For example, we have not received the resident’s reports or the landlord’s responses in June 2023 or August 2024. This amounts to a record keeping failure and/or a failure to provide us with information for our investigation. Consequently, we cannot ascertain when he contacted it, what actions it took, and whether or not its actions were timely and appropriate. Also, it has provided a large amount of information in the form of a typed chronology, in which some dates/events do not correspond with other evidence.
11. As the ASB procedure we have seen post-dates the resident’s reports in June 2023 and August 2024, we cannot ascertain if the landlord responded in accordance with its policies and procedures in place at the time. In any case, the resident’s email to the landlord on 5 July 2023 and his subsequent complaints dated 30 October 2023 and 11 September 2024 suggest it did not respond to several communications at the time. This was inappropriate.
12. The procedure requires the landlord to assess the risk of harm and impact to the resident, and consider all relevant circumstances in order to guide actions. The landlord has told us no actual risk assessment forms were completed. Instead, it stated the ASB case was risk assessed throughout its contact with the resident and was captured in the chronology. However, there is no evidence of any such risk assessments. This was a significant failing in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports and was not consistent with its ASB procedure.
13. The landlord has not demonstrated to us, with reference to evidence, that it took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s ASB reports in August 2024. Nor has it substantiated its assertion, in its stage 1 response dated 11 September 2024, that the resident refused to co-operate with it.
14. The landlord went on to state that “breach of tenancy would be dealt with post-criminal case”. The threshold for the landlord to take action for breach of tenancy, including ASB reports, is the civil standard (balance of probabilities), which is lower than the threshold required for criminal offences (beyond reasonable doubt). Its insistence on a criminal investigation before it could take action for breach of tenancy put the resident to a higher standard of proof than it needed, which was unfair and unreasonable.
15. There is also no evidence of the landlord’s communications or co-ordination with the police in 2024. That is, despite this forming part of the resident’s complaint of 11 September 2024 and the landlord’s assurance in its stage 2 response that it would liaise with the police. This was inconsistent with its commitment to partnership working in its ASB procedure.
16. As before, the landlord has not provided us with the resident’s ASB reports in January 2025, which related to the smell of continued drug use, storage of a motorcycle indoors, the position of CCTV cameras, and possible drug dealing in and around the block. However, there was a marked improvement in its communications with the resident. It sent him an action plan on 13 January 2025 and updated this on 2 February 2025, clearly explaining the issues it could and could not consider, how it would investigate his concerns, and the tools it intended to use to enforce tenancy standards. Records show it took prompt intervening actions, reflecting a victim-centred and proportionate approach in line with its ASB procedure.
17. Following a further report on 22 March 2025, the landlord emailed the resident stating it would give his neighbour “one last warning before we consider serving Notice of Seeking Possession”. This was not consistent with its ASB procedure, which stated that it would usually consider serving a NOSP if reports continued after a third warning letter had been issued. It therefore unreasonably raised the resident’s expectations in respect of tenancy enforcement. This was compounded by its subsequent failure to update the resident following its conversation with the neighbour on 4 April 2025.
18. Consequently, when the resident reported a further incident of drug use in the block on 9 July 2025, he insisted the landlord serve a NOSP. However, it responded, explaining that it “felt this was too harsh at this stage based on the number of incidents… to date”, but it advised the neighbour would be “issued with a final warning letter advising that should further incidents occur Notice of Seeking Possession will be issued”.
19. Despite this assurance, the landlord again decided not to follow through with service of a NOSP when the resident reported a further incident on 28 August 2025, which in turn prompted the resident’s further stage 1 complaint. While we appreciate the difficult balancing act for the landlord to ensure fairness to both parties in this case, the resident’s frustration is understandable given its repeated assurances it would issue a NOSP next time, then explaining why it would not do so. To be clear, that is not to say it ought to have issued a NOSP, as this is a matter for the landlord.
20. Mediation was not offered at any stage in this case. The landlord has told us this was because the parties were already communicating with each other. While the evidence shows the resident had tried to resolve matters through direct communications with the neighbour, there was a clear breakdown in the relationship between the parties due to allegations of ongoing drug use. For instance, in the resident’s email to the landlord on 12 September 2024, he noted his frustration with the situation and the possibility of “an altercation one day over this”. In the circumstances, its failure to offer mediation was a missed opportunity and another significant failure to adhere to its ASB procedure.
21. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to make a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We understand the resulting loss of enjoyment of his property and the distress caused to the resident was primarily due to his neighbour’s actions. Nevertheless, the landlord’s failings clearly exacerbated this and had a significant adverse impact, for which we have awarded compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

22. We note that the landlord apparently did not send any formal acknowledgements upon receipt of any of the resident’s complaints, either at stages 1 or 2. For the most part, this was of no consequence as its responses were issued within the timescales set out in its policy and our statutory Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’):
    1. It responded to his stage 1 complaint of 11 September 2024 on the same day and to his further stage 1 complaint of 3 September 2025 within 2 working days, against the prescribed timeframe of 10 working days.
    2. It responded to his stage 2 complaint of 5 September 2025 within 3 working days, against the prescribed timeframe of 20 working days.
23. The exception to this was in respect of the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 12 September 2024, to which the landlord responded on 6 November 2024. This was 39 working days after receipt, against the timescale of 20 working days in its policy. The delay was duly acknowledged by the landlord in its response and it apologised, which was appropriate.
24. The landlord’s stage 1 response dated 11 September 2024 appeared to blame the resident for its lack of action in response to his reports in August 2024. The tone of the response was unsympathetic and defensive. It did not constitute a fair and balanced response. Overall, it was not consistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes).
25. When the resident sought to escalate his complaint on 12 September 2024, the landlord stated, “A complaint, in connection with Stage 2, must explain why you feel the decision is incorrect.” This was not compliant with the Code, which states, “Residents must not be required to explain their reasons for requesting a stage 2 consideration. Landlords are expected to make reasonable efforts to understand why a resident remains unhappy as part of its stage 2 response.”
26. As it happened, the resident’s comprehensive reply, setting out the reasons for his disagreement with the stage 1 response, was not fully addressed in the landlord’s response of 6 November 2024. It failed to address his concerns about the handling of ASB issues, instead offering assurances about its commitments to deal with future reports and complaints. It also alluded to the need for him to engage with its staff, without answering his complaint about specific members of staff ignoring his reports, not replying to emails, and not providing an impartial response at stage 1. This was unfair, did not seek to put things right, and showed no learning from the resident’s complaint, contrary to the Code and our Dispute Resolution Principles.
27. The landlord’s further responses dated 5 and 10 September 2025 were a notable improvement on its earlier complaint handling. These broadly addressed the issues raised in the resident’s complaints of 3 and 5 September 2025 respectively. The landlord accepted that it could have worded its correspondence differently in order to manage his expectations about tenancy enforcement action. It apologised and sought to show learning by noting the feedback provided to the member of staff concerned.
28. Although these responses were a slightly better reflection of our Dispute Resolution Principles, they were not satisfactory. The landlord did not demonstrate it had conducted a sufficiently robust investigation in order to fairly assess its handling of the ASB reports beyond its decision not to issue a NOSP. It failed to identify its shortcomings, consider the impact on the resident, and offer appropriate redress to remedy matters. Essentially, it did not use its complaints procedure as an effective tool for resolving the resident’s concerns in this case.
29. For these reasons, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. The resulting impact to the resident was a compounding effect, causing him to feel that it had not listened or taken his concerns seriously. Therefore, it is fair and reasonable to award compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord failed to keep and maintain adequate records in this case, and/or to provide us with all the relevant information for our investigation. It should review and improve its record keeping practices in order to ensure it complies with its regulatory obligations.

Communication

31. The landlord’s communications with the resident were also unsatisfactory. On a number of occasions, it failed to respond to his correspondence. Further, the tone of some communications was unsympathetic and unduly harsh.