Melton Borough Council (202419013)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his concerns about ASB and his request for a transfer. He has told us he has now moved to a different property.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s request for a transfer
   2. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his request for a transfer it outside our jurisdiction
   2. there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB
   3. there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s request for a transfer

5. We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease, or a social housing tenancy. In this case, the council was not acting in its capacity as a landlord because its actions relate to its housing allocation, bidding, banding, and the housing register. As such, we have no power to investigate the complaint about the resident’s request for a housing transfer. He may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

ASB

6. The landlord conducted a risk assessment at the earliest opportunity in line with its ASB policy. It did offer some support options but did not follow up with these.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy timescales.

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.

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.

8. The resident told the landlord he did not feel it was giving him enough support in moving to an alternative property. He has told us he has now moved to a new property. In its stage 2 response, the landlord referred him to the LGSCO if he remained unhappy. If he is still unhappy with its handling of his request for a transfer, he would need to raise his concerns with the LGSCO.

9. On 28 February 2024, the resident told the landlord that a neighbour had come to his property and threatened him. Its ASB policy says it will open a case and contact the resident within 3 working days for such an incident. Its records show no action relating to this report until a week later 5 March 2024, when it noted that he needed to report this to the police. It is not clear that it communicated with him at this time, as this appears to be an internal communication. This was not in line with its ASB policy.
10. On 2 May 2024, the resident and his local Councillor met with the landlord to discuss his housing needs. At this meeting it told him it had received no further reports of ASB from him or any of its partner organisations.
11. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 May 2024 to report that the neighbours were shouting, arguing, and slamming doors. He asked the landlord to do something about it. It replied the next day to say he needed to report it to the police and there was nothing it could do. While we appreciate it would have been helpful for him to make a police report, it was not in line with its ASB policy to say it could not do anything. This sets out a range of options it could take, such as mediation and warnings, but it did not offer any support to him.
12. On 15 May 2024, the resident reported noise from the neighbour again. He said he wanted the landlord to take action but did not want the neighbour to know it was him that reported it. The landlord responded the next day and said it could write to them and would not disclose it was him that reported it. However, it said the neighbour may assume it was him and asked him to confirm he wanted it to take this action. Given his concerns about identification, this was a reasonable step by the landlord. He did not respond to confirm he wanted it to write to them.
13. On 22 May 2024, the resident told the landlord that there had been people knocking his door at odd hours over the last 2 days. The landlord responded the following day to ask if he knew who it was, and if he had reported this to the police. It said it could put in a referral for a video doorbell and would look at installing CCTV. The resident said he had not reported it to the police. He asked if the landlord would pay for the video doorbell. We have seen no evidence the landlord followed up on the offer of a video doorbell.
14. In its stage 1 response of 17 July 2024 the landlord said it had sent diary sheets and not received these back from the resident. However, we have seen no evidence to show that it sent these. It also said it offered him a video doorbell, but as explained above, after he expressed an interest in this, there is no evidence it followed through with arranging this.
15. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will conduct a risk assessment on every ASB case. However, the landlord has only provided copies of risk assessments it conducted in January and May 2025, many months after its internal complaints process concluded. We appreciate the resident did not always engage with its attempts to support him, and there is no evidence he ever reported any ASB incidents to the police. However, the landlord should have done more to assess the situation and support the resident, in line with its policy.
16. We have made our compensation award with our compensation guidance in mind where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge this. The reports of ASB from the resident were not frequent, but the landlord did miss opportunities to do more to support him, causing him some distress and inconvenience.

17. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord sent its stage 1 response 2 working days after the resident raised the complaint (15 July to 17 July 2024) – in line with its complaints policy timescale of 10 working days
    2. it sent its stage 2 response 2 working days after escalating the complaint (9 August to 13 August 2024) – in line with its policy timescale of 20 working days

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

18. There were shortfalls in the landlord’s record keeping and communication in this case. Its record keeping does not demonstrate that it took all the necessary actions in line with its ASB policy. It has also not demonstrated that it clearly communicated to the resident what actions he needed to take to progress an ASB investigation. We would encourage the landlord to ensure it keeps robust records and communicates clearly with residents about next steps it needs them to take.