City of Lincoln Council (202448151)

Decision
Case ID	202448151
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Lincoln Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	5 February 2026

Background

The resident lives in a block of flats and reported his neighbour to the landlord for noise and drug related activity. He also raised concerns about staff conduct during a telephone call. The landlord reviewed ASB diaries, talked to other residents and the police, and sent the neighbour a warning letter before closing the case. It said it did not have enough evidence to address his concerns about staff conduct. The resident remained dissatisfied because the ASB continued and he felt the landlord had not appropriately addressed staff behaviour. He asked us to assess whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Staff conduct.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Complaint handling.
We found service failure in the landlord’s response to staff conduct.

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

Summary of reasons

ASB

The landlord did not follow key elements of its ASB process, including appropriately assessing the risk of harm, adhering to the action plan, or multiagency working. It also failed to consider the full range of measures available for the dealing with the ASB.

Staff conduct

The landlord failed to demonstrate it communicated appropriately with the resident about the full investigation into his concerns, this caused him distress. Its response was unsympathetic about this matter and failed to apply a proportionate remedy for its failings or consider how it could improve its record keeping practices.

Complaint handling

The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint or escalation request and unreasonably delayed in responding at stage 1. Its record keeping fell short because it either did not retain or did not share a full record of the complaint, including how it had scoped it. As the resident also disputed the scoping, we could not be satisfied that it had addressed all elements of the complaint.

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 member of the ASB department. 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 05 March 2026
2	Case review order The landlord must conduct a case review relating to its record keeping in relation to the ASB, staff conduct, and complaint handling examined in this report. And provide us with a written summary of its findings. This should set out: The minimum standards that should have been recorded. Which standards were not met, and the reasons for these failures. Any wider learning identified to prevent a recurrence. The actions it will take to prevent a reoccurrence in future, with associated timeframes.	No later than 02 April 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its response to ASB. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its response to staff conduct. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its complaint handling failings. 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 05 March 2026
4	Specific action order The landlord must assess whether it is reasonable to reimburse the resident for incurred costs of installing CCTV at his property in line with its compensation policy or as a goodwill gesture. It must write to him with its decision.	No later than 05 March 2026
5	Specific action order The landlord must write to the resident to confirm if it has an open ASB case relating to the resident’s recent reports. If it does, it must ensure it has risk assessed the case and completed an action plan with him. If it does not have an open case, it must explain to the resident in writing the reason for this, with reference to its current ASB policy.	No later than 05 March 2026

Recommendation

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord considers providing training for relevant staff to strengthen their understanding and practice of the expected standards for record keeping.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 November 2022	The resident reported that his neighbour was dealing and smoking drugs, shouting, and making loud noises. He also found drug paraphernalia in the communal area. The landlord wrote to the neighbour to explain it would investigate the noise and that the council might issue a noise abatement notice. It spoke with other residents to gather information, completed a risk assessment, and gave the resident an action plan focused on monitoring the situation via diary sheets and for it to keep in contact weekly.
Between 26 November 2022 and 18 January 2023	The resident kept diary sheets and recorded around 15 incidents, including: Drug smells and drug dealing near the bin store Urination in the stairwell A broken communal door Loud noises from the neighbour. Visitors frequently coming and going from the neighbour’s property. He said he did not feel safe in the building and wanted to move. The landlord told him to continue keeping diary sheets and advised that only the noise issues were within its remit, as the police must deal with drug related concerns. It closed the case on 18 January 2023 and informed the resident in a voicemail. It said it made this decision because the diary sheets “did not detail ASB” and “things were quieter”.
19 October 2024	The resident submitted a complaint form stating he “could not put into words the complaint” about two of his housing officers. Asking the landlord to contact him for a “full account of the complaint”.
12 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It reviewed its initial investigation and found it had monitored the case but closed it due to insufficient evidence. It said the police were involved, but no tenancy or criminal action followed because of insufficient evidence. It also found limited records of its communications with the resident. It acknowledged that he felt unheard and apologised. It said it had opened a new case and was now contacting him regularly. It also explained that a new service structure, including specialist ASB officers, was being introduced to improve tenancy management.
31 January 2025	The resident escalated his complaint because he felt the landlord had not recognised his concerns about staff conduct and he wanted a “formal and heartfelt apology.” He said he had endured 2 years of problems with his neighbour and believed the landlord had enabled the behaviour. He also said he received a phone call from the landlord that he found “disgusting” and “inappropriate.” He asked for clarification on whether the landlord had breached data protection requirements by disclosing his information to the neighbour. And whether it had followed all safeguarding procedures to protect him.
24 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said its stage 1 response included an apology on behalf of the service. It also said its staff were trained in data protection and safeguarding and no evidence of a breach was found. It could not investigate the phone call because it did not have the recording. It apologised for a lack of action between June and November 2024 and the officers investigating the current case would take action or explain if action was not possible. It would share the learning outcomes with staff including the importance of regular contact in all cases. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us because the ASB was ongoing and he was scared to leave his home. He also wanted the landlord to fully address the scope of his complaint, apologise and offer compensation for its failures.

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	Response to reports of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

We cannot make a decision about whether a nuisance or ASB has occurred. But we can assess whether the landlord met its legal and policy duties, followed best practice, and acted fairly in response to the reports it received. In this case we used our discretion to consider events from November 2022 because the landlord’s complaint responses reviewed its ASB handling from that time.
The landlord did not provide the ASB policy in place between November 2022 and May 2023. However, evidence from the time noted it committed to responding to ASB reports within 24 hours to complete a risk assessment and agree an action plan. It also said it would respond to noise nuisance within 5 working days to arrange a home visit, complete a risk assessment, and agree an action plan. The landlord’s actions have also been considered in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement which states it may take legal action to deal with ASB.
In response to the resident’s initial reports, the landlord carried out a risk assessment, agreed an action plan, and wrote to the neighbour to confirm it was investigating drug related and noise related disturbances. This aligned with its guidance and best practice. However, the risk assessment did not include a risk rating despite the resident explaining he was fearful of his neighbour. Because of this, we cannot determine the level of risk the landlord identified or whether its planned actions were proportionate. There is also no evidence it conducted a home visit in line with its guidance at the time. Additionally, the resident said he was unaware of the action plan and risk assessment.
Nonetheless there is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident weekly between November 2022 and January 2023, as promised in its action plan. This departure from its agreement caused the resident time and trouble seeking updates. The action plan also said it would gather information from the police, but we have seen no evidence of this. In such cases we would expect the landlord to take a multiagency approach. It is unclear whether this was due to poor record keeping or because the information was not obtained. As a result, we cannot be satisfied the landlord considered all the relevant emerging evidence or followed the actions it had agreed to. We also found the landlord noted vulnerabilities for the resident. But there is no evidence it took further appropriate steps to support him with this, such as referrals to local support services. This was a failure to appropriately consider his vulnerabilities.
The landlord gave diary sheets to the resident and appropriately reviewed them in December 2022 and January 2023. It also tried to confirm the resident’s reports by gathering supporting evidence from other witnesses. While this was positive, it also told the resident it could only deal with noise nuisance and that the police must handle drug related issues.
We recognise that criminal matters are for the police. However, this does not prevent the landlord from considering civil measures within its tenancy management powers. The drug related issues continued to be reported by the resident, as such it would have been proportionate for it to have explored the full range of informal and formal options available to it. For example, extra lighting, CCTV, further warnings, referrals to support services, or formal action such as civil injunctions or acceptable behaviour contracts. Its failure to demonstrate it considered these options meant we could not be satisfied it appropriately assessed how it could fully address the ASB and ultimately the resident’s concerns. As a result, the resident installed CCTV at his own expense.
The resident explained he was dissatisfied with how members of staff had handled the case because he felt he had not been listened to. The landlord apologised and accepted there had been a lack of action between June and November 2024. However, it did not provide any records relating to this period, so we could not assess its actions during this time. It is unclear if this is because it did not share this information or because there were no records from this time. In any event this was a failure to maintain appropriate records.
The landlord said it had assigned new officers to the case and would ensure any actions or inaction would be explained to the resident. And that a new tenancy structure was due to be implemented. We consider this did not fully address the impact of the additional failures we have identified. In line with our remedies guidance we have ordered and apology and compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The resident said he was unclear about whether an ASB case was active or the steps it was currently taking. We have also ordered the landlord to write to the resident with an update on the ASB.

Complaint	Response to concerns about staff conduct
Finding	Service failure

What we have not considered

We cannot assess whether individual staff actions were appropriate, as this is an employment function. We consider staff as working on behalf of the landlord. This means we have assessed whether the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and took proportionate action based on the information it had.
The resident also raised concerns about a possible data breach where his information was given to the neighbour. We cannot investigate this part of the complaint because it falls under the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The resident may wish to seek advice from the ICO if he remains concerned.

What we have considered

The resident’s concerns mainly related to a telephone call and the officer’s conduct during it. The resident said this took place during the latter end of 2023 and his reports were “dismissed” and “minimised”. He said he was told not to report the ASB because it was a police matter. The landlord said in its complaint responses it did not have the call recording and had “very little recorded that would allow [it] to disagree”. The landlord had since told us that it spoke with the officers at the time and made handwritten notes, which were not retained in line with its record keeping procedures.
It was appropriate for the landlord to speak with the relevant staff member in order to investigate the resident’s concerns. However, there is no evidence it had communicated with the resident about all the steps it had taken to investigate this matter. This contributed to the resident feeling that his concerns were not being taken seriously. Additionally, we consider the landlord’s wording in its compliant response was unsympathetic and would have added to the resident’s distress.
We recognise the landlord did apologise generally for any distress and inconvenience caused. While this was appropriate, it should also have considered whether staff needed further training for recording customer interactions, especially as it considered its own records were “limited” at the time. This could have strengthened its record keeping practices and improved the quality of future investigations. We recommend it considers any training that may be beneficial for staff in such situations. In line with our remedies guidance, we have also ordered specific compensation for the distress caused.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), applicable from April 2024, was in use at the time of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy appropriately adopted the definition of a complaint and the response timeframes set out in the Code.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint or escalation request, which did not comply with the Code. We have therefore assumed it logged them on the days they were submitted.
The landlord issued its responses as follows:
1. Stage 1 was issued 16 working days after the complaint; this was outside the Code’s 10 working day timeframe. There is no evidence it appropriately contacted the resident to explain the delay or provide a revised timeframe.
2. Stage 2 was issued 16 working days after the escalation request, which met the Code’s 20 working day requirement.
The resident said the landlord did not answer all parts of his complaint because it did not complete a “full community review”. He also said the responses were biased, failed to consider the vulnerabilities of other residents, or its record keeping.
The landlord did not provide any records of further discussions with the resident about the complaint, but it did provide scoping in its stage 1 response. The resident explained he discussed his complaint with the landlord in person. It is unclear whether these discussions were not recorded or not shared with us. Because of this missing evidence and the resident’s dispute around the complaint scope, we cannot be satisfied the landlord answered all elements of the complaint. This caused the resident distress because it remained unresolved.
The landlord did not reflect on its complaint handling in its responses, so it did not identify any failures or try to put things right. In line with our remedies guidance we have ordered an apology and compensation to recognise the impact on the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not keep robust records of its ASB case management and the complaint. It may benefit from further training to relevant staff members, so they are aware of what ought to be recorded.

Communication

The landlord did not keep the resident regularly informed about his case. It recognised this and explained it was providing feedback to staff members.