Leeds City Council (202516683)

Decision
Case ID	202516683
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Leeds City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	23 January 2026

Background

1. The resident occupies a 2-bedroom house with her children. She has told us she suffers from anxiety and agoraphobia. In November 2023 a dispute arose between the resident and her neighbour over noise concerns, allegedly caused by the pipework in the resident’s property. By May 2024 the resident had raised concerns about alleged anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour. In August 2024 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB, including what support it had offered her.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress for its handling of the reports of ASB.
5. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to open an ASB case when the resident first reported her concerns. The landlord has apologised and offered reasonable compensation for this. After recognising its failure, the landlord opened an ASB case. Following this, it appointed an ASB officer, completed a risk assessment and action plan, attempted to gather evidence, and referred the resident to external support organisations. This was in line with its ASB policy and was fair and reasonable.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord pay the resident the £100 compensation, offered in its stage 1 response letter, if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 August 2024	The resident complained, stating she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB, including: Its response to alleged racial discrimination, harassment, bullying and false allegations. Its failure to open an ASB case and offer support. The resident said she had fled her home due to the ASB and was afraid to return. To resolve matters, she asked the landlord to take immediate action to make her property safe or move her to an alternative property.   The resident said she had reported ASB in February 2024, but the landlord had not taken action. She detailed a number of incidents that had occurred since November 2023 and notified the landlord of the impact on her mental health.
3 September 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response, upholding the resident’s complaint. The landlord said the matter should have been referred to its ASB triage team when the resident first reported the issue.   The landlord acknowledged that its Housing Officer had not visited the resident in person to discuss her concerns. However, it said they had corresponded by email and telephone.   The landlord noted it had referred the resident to the appropriate team to discuss housing options. It provided the relevant contact details for the resident in the event she needed support with her application.   The landlord confirmed it had appointed an ASB officer to work with the resident. It offered the resident £100 compensation for not escalating her ASB case in reasonable time.
29 September 2024	The resident escalated her complaint, stating she did not feel she had been given the correct support. She said there had been 2 more incidents of ASB in the last week which had required the involvement of the police.
30 September 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response letter. It agreed with the findings of the stage 1 response. However, it noted that it would have been sensible to agree to revisit the issue and to offer further support periodically following the stage 1 complaint.   The landlord said its ASB officer could have helped the resident make a referral to external support organisations. It noted the ASB officer had not informed the resident of other support organisations until recently, and this information should have been provided sooner.   The landlord confirmed the local council’s housing team would complete an assessment for the resident and would be in touch in approximately 4 weeks’ time.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to our Service as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. She said the landlord had not taken her reports of ASB and racial discrimination seriously.   She asked for the landlord to take immediate action against the perpetrator of the ASB, to review its complaint and ASB policy, and to award further compensation.   The resident said she spent a significant amount of money staying away from her home as often as possible and was now in financial difficulty. She also told us about the impact this had on her mental health.

 

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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. When she brought her complaint to our Service, the resident mentioned the landlord’s handling of alleged ASB after the date of its stage 2 response letter. We will not usually investigate issues that the landlord has not had the opportunity to consider through its internal complaint procedure. So, the landlord’s handling of reported ASB after the stage 2 response is outside of the scope of this investigation. The resident may raise her concerns with the landlord directly, if necessary.
8. The resident made a counter-allegation of ASB which she believed to be racially motivated on around 10 May 2024. The landlord’s ASB policy says that a counter-allegation of ASB must be logged as a formal enquiry and responded to in line with the landlord’s service standards.
9. The ASB policy also states that hate-related incidents may include any behaviour perceived by the reporting person as being motivated by a prejudice or hostility based upon a victim’s race or ethnicity. In line with the landlord’s policy, hate-related incidents should be treated as urgent enquiries and responded to within 1 working day.
10. The landlord did not open an ASB case or a separate enquiry for the resident at that time. Instead, it appears the landlord treated the resident’s counter-allegation as context within an existing ASB case brought by the resident’s neighbour.
11. The landlord’s actions, set out above, were not in line with its ASB policy. It should have recorded the resident’s counter-allegations as a separate enquiry and responded urgently due to the nature of the alleged ASB. The landlord has accepted this failure in its complaint responses.
12. Following the resident’s complaint on 21 August 2024, the landlord:
    1. Recorded an ASB enquiry.
    2. Appointed an ASB case officer, who contacted the resident on 23 August 2024.
    3. Agreed an action plan with the resident on 29 August 2024.
    4. Carried out an interview with the resident, to establish facts and explain its ASB process.
    5. Completed a risk assessment on 30 August 2024.
    6. Completed a letter-drop in September 2023, asking other residents to report ASB related concerns to assist in gathering evidence.
    7. Provided the resident a noise diary on 8 September 2024, to document evidence of ASB.
    8. Referred the resident to relevant external agencies on 30 August 2024 and 25 September 2024.
    9. Liaised with the police about the alleged hate crimes the resident had reported.
13. The landlord’s ASB policy says it must carry out vulnerability assessments, gather evidence, explain its process, and keep in regular contact with the resident. The landlord must also refer the resident to relevant external agencies. The actions the landlord carried out after opening an ASB case for the resident aligned with its policy. This was fair and reasonable.
14. In its stage 2 response the landlord noted that it had referred the resident to several relevant external agencies. The landlord said it would have been helpful if it had supported the resident with her referral. The landlord’s policy says it will offer victims of ASB a referral to external agencies. It does not say the landlord must actively assist in the referral process, beyond offering it. So, while we agree it would have been helpful, the landlord was not obliged to directly assist the resident in making her referral.
15. Following the stage 2 response, the landlord continued to monitor the resident’s ASB case until 9 December 2024, when it closed the case. This was because it had received insufficient evidence of the alleged ASB, and the resident had confirmed, in her email dated 4 December 2024, the issues had stopped.
16. Overall, the landlord should have opened an ASB case when the resident first reported her concerns. The landlord has recognised this and offered the resident £100 compensation. Our remedies Guidance says compensation of £100 may be fair and reasonable where a failure has caused distress and inconvenience but has not significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
17. The evidence indicates that the landlord’s failure did not ultimately affect the outcome. Once the landlord did open a case, it took appropriate steps in line with its ASB procedures.However, the resident did not provide evidence to support her allegations and later confirmed that the behaviour had stopped. In these circumstances, it is unlikely that opening the case earlier would have led to a different outcome. The landlord’s delay therefore did not cause a level of detriment beyond the £100 compensation it awarded.
18. We recognise the resident has said she fled her home because of the alleged ASB. We are sorry to hear about the impact this had on the resident. However, for the landlord to act under its policy, it must have evidence of the alleged ASB.
19. Taking the above into account, we are satisfied that the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress prior to the complaint being brought to our service. We recommend the landlord pay the resident the compensation it offered in its stage 1 response, if it has not already done so.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

20. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, as set out in its complaints policy. This aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which requires landlords to answer complaints within set timescales.
21. Under its policy, the landlord should respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord met both these deadlines when answering the complaint.
22. The Code requires the landlord to address all points raised in the complaint definition. The resident has recently told us she does not believe the landlord met its obligations under articles 8 and 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and the landlord has not considered this. We have not been provided evidence to show the resident raised these concerns with the landlord as part of her complaint. So, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to omit this from its complaint responses. Additionally, as we cannot usually investigate a complaint that the landlord has not had the opportunity to consider, this matter falls outside of the scope of this investigation.
23. We have not identified any other concerns with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We have therefore made a finding of no maladministration for the complaint handling.

Learning

24. The landlord did not follow its ASB policy when the resident first raised her concerns. To improve matters, the landlord should take steps to ensure all relevant staff are aware of the landlord’s ASB policies and procedures.