Leeds City Council (202532040)

Decision
Case ID	202532040
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Leeds City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	19 March 2026

Background

The resident raised concerns about anti-social behaviour (ASB) and the presence of rats in the property. She made a formal complaint because she felt the landlord was not addressing her concerns.

What the complaint is about

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Reports of rats in the property.
3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found the landlord responsible for service failure in its handling of:
1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Reports of rats in the property.
We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of reports of ASB

The landlord initially handled the resident’s reports of ASB reasonably by advising her to contact the ASB team. However, when this approach did not lead to progress, the landlord did not take a proactive role as the resident continued to raise concerns. It also did not arrange a visit to understand her situation, despite her requesting this on several occasions. These missed opportunities meant the resident’s concerns have not been effectively addressed.

Handling of reports of rats in the property

Although the landlord advised the resident to contact the pest control team, this approach did not lead to the issue being addressed, and the landlord did not escalate the matter itself or arrange a visit, even when she requested one. These missed opportunities, and the lack of a proactive approach. This meant the resident’s concerns have not been property investigated and any appropriate pest control measures put in place.

Handling of the associated complaint

The landlord followed its policy in response to the resident’s formal 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	ASB case and action plan order The landlord must open an ASB case and meet with the resident to complete an assessment. Following the visit, the landlord must set out an action plan that includes: The actions, if any, it intends to take. Timescales for each action, including how often it will update the resident and when the plan will be reviewed. Details of any support it can offer to the resident. The landlord must be clear about what actions it can and cannot take in response to the resident’s reports of ASB.	No later than 16 April 2026
2	Pest control inspection The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a pest control inspection. It must take reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the pest control team inspects the property for signs of rats and provides the findings to the resident and landlord.	No later than 16 April 2026
3	Repairs Order After the pest control inspection, the landlord must provide the following information to the resident in writing: Whether the landlord is responsible for any repairs related to pest control, with reasons if it is not responsible. A full scope of works required to achieve a lasting and effective resolution (if the landlord is responsible for any repairs). The likely timescales to start and complete any required work.	No later than 16 April 2026
4	Apology order The landlord must apologise in person 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 16 April 2026
5	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150 made up as follows: £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling reports of ASB. £75 for the distress and inconvenience causes by its failures in handling reports of rats in the property.	No later than 16 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 October 2025	The resident raised a complaint. She said: There were unfriendly young adult males around her property drinking and smoking, and items left in the garden had been stolen. People were smoking cannabis near her home, and the odours entered the property. As a result, she kept the windows closed and the children did not play outside. A knife had been found by the police behind her property after a shooting in the community. The house had nearly caught fire twice due to fires set by unknown people in the bush and neglected area behind the property. The fire service had attended to extinguish the fires. There were large rats that had entered the property and damaged food, clothes, and bins. Past pest control visits had not resolved the problem. She had spoken to the housing officer and the ASB team but saw no signs of solutions to her concerns.
5 November 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: The housing officer was unaware of the current issues apart from the uncut land to the rear of the property, which its services were arranging to maintain. The ASB team had received reports on 17 July 2025 about unknown individuals smoking cannabis and lighting fires in the open space behind the property. The team had attempted to call the resident twice and sent a letter on 15 September 2025 to say the case would be closed if there was no response. It would give permission for the resident to install CCTV. No pest control jobs had been raised since December 2023. It provided the contact number for the pest control team, who could attend to address the issue.
10 November 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said: Her housing officer was aware of the issues she had raised. She was not satisfied with the proposed solutions as these were steps she had already taken. She had learned that the property had a history of trespassing. She was afraid another fire could occur and put her family’s safety at risk. Her children could not play in the garden because they were bullied by unknown people who smoked cannabis. The last time she called the police, they did not attend because the individuals left when she mentioned she was calling them. She and her children did not feel safe in the home, and she needed to be rehoused.
3 December 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: There was an isolated incident of damage to the property when it was empty, but there was no evidence of vandalism while it had been occupied by a tenant. The resident had not reported any ASB since 17 July 2025, and there were no recent reports of cannabis smoking or fire–setting. It encouraged her to call emergency services if any fire-setting occurred. It had previously advised her to contact the housing options team to request a priority assessment for rehousing based on her concerns, and there was no indication she had done so. It suggested she pursue this and provided the contact details. It also recommended she increase the number of bids she placed on properties. There had been no pest control reports since December 2023, and it provided the number again.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us because she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. She said that the housing officer had not visited the property to gain a better understanding of her concerns, despite her requesting this. She felt the home was not a healthy or safe environment for her family.

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 reports of ASB
Finding	Service failure

When the resident asked to be rehoused because of her concern about ASB, the landlord gave appropriate advice on how to apply for rehousing. The resident later told us she had applied but disagreed with the banding she was given. This is a separate issue that she may wish to raise through the landlord’s complaint process. If unresolved, she could contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, who considers complaints about housing allocations.
The resident first reported ASB in July 2025. She provided evidence including a video of the fire and a photo of the metal fence at the back of her property partially blackened from fire. The landlord attempted to call her twice and left voicemails asking her to return the calls. Two months later, it sent a letter explaining it had been unable to make contact and would close the case unless she got in touch.
About a week before that letter was sent, the resident had emailed her housing officer raising concerns, including about the ASB. The housing officer replied and advised her to contact the ASB team. This was despite an earlier introductory email in which the housing officer had said she could assist with issues such as reporting ASB.
The resident said she called the ASB team after receiving the letter and was told the case would be reopened, but she did not hear anything further. The landlord’s evidence does not record this call.
The resident continued to raised concerns about ASB in emails to her housing officer and through her formal complaint. Despite this, the landlord continued to direct her to call the ASB team, even though it was aware that the resident had not followed this advice.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that ASB can be reported in different ways. While specialist teams require certain information, we would expect different departments within the Council to work together to support residents. The resident also asked on several occasions since September 2025 for a housing officer to visit her home to discuss her concerns, but she told us no visit has taken place.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles encourage landlords to be fair. This includes acting flexibly in the application of its processes to ensure individual needs are taken into account and to resolve concerns. In this case, once it was clear that referring the resident back to the ASB team was not working, the landlord should have taken a more proactive approach. For example, raising the ASB case itself during the complaints process rather than requiring the resident to make further calls.
Because the landlord did not take a proactive approach which meant that the resident repeatedly raised the same concerns over several months, without effective action, we have found service failure in its handling of ASB.
The resident told us she continues to feel unsafe and that her car was recently vandalised. We have therefore ordered the landlord to open an ASB case, speak to the resident to discuss her concerns, and explain what action it can take, if any.
To recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £75 in compensation.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of rats in the property
Finding	Service failure

The landlord provides a free rat control service to its tenants. The resident reported rats in late 2023, and in early 2024 the pest control team blocked openings in the property and put bait down. It inspected soon after and found no active signs of rats.
In September 2025, the resident emailed her housing officer saying that rats were still a problem. The housing officer responded by giving her the number for pest control. The resident continued to email the housing officer and later made a complaint, as she felt the landlord had not addressed the issue. She provided photo evidence showing food damaged by rats and said the problem had become more serious, including hearing rats in the attic and finding what appeared to be a dead rat in the storage room.
Although the landlord repeatedly advised the resident to contact the pest control team herself, she did not do so and instead continued reporting the issue to the housing officer and complaints officer. As this approach was not leading to progress, the landlord had opportunities to take a more proactive role, such as reporting the issue directly to the pest control team or visiting the resident as she requested. Relying strictly on the resident to notify the correct team meant the resident’s reports of a rat infestation were not addressed.
As the landlord did not provide sufficient support despite multiple reports and evidence of rats in the property, we have found service failure. We have ordered the landlord to open a pest control case and visit the property to assess and address the rat issue. We have also ordered an apology and £75 in compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failure in service.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and respond at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within its policy timeframes at both stages. We have therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Responding to residents’ repeated concerns in a timely and joined-up manner, rather than relying on a single process or point of contact, may help prevent delays and reduce frustration. In this case, the formal complaint process was a missed opportunity for the landlord to review its contact with the resident and take a solution focused approach.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We did not identify any record keeping issues in this case.

Communication

The landlord expected the resident to communicate in specific ways to specific teams, but this approach was not effective in this case. This left the resident feeling that the concerns she raised were not being responded to.
We understand the importance of getting queries to the right department promptly and that direct contact is preferable. However, in this case, the repeated contact by the resident, including her requests for a home visit by the housing officer, meant that a different approach was needed. There is learning for the landlord to take around its communication here, in particular making sure that a resident’s concerns are understood and acted upon.