Milton Keynes City Council (202445243)

Back to Top

Decision

Case ID

202445243

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Milton Keynes City Council

Landlord type

Local Authority

Occupancy

SecureTenancy

Date

27 May 2026

Background

  1. The resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from neighbours to her landlord in February 2024 and during 2025. The ASB involved allegations of noise nuisance, threats, violence, damage to property, fly tipping, and drug use. She complained to it about its handling of ASB several times between June 2024 and December 2025.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of ASB.
  2. We have also considered its complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We have found there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
    2. Maladministration in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

ASB

  1. The landlord took several steps in line with its ASB policy. However, it did not show that it investigated her reports of noise nuisance in December 2025. This was not in line with the promises it made in its stage 2 complaint response or its ASB policy.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord failed to respond to complaints in line with the timescales in its complaint’s policy. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate.

 

 

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. It must ensure:

  • it provides an apology by a senior person
  • 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

25 June 2026

2

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows:

  • £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of ASB
  • £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling

It must pay this directly to her by the due date. It must provide to us documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

25 June 2026

3

ASB case review

The landlord must review the resident’s reports of ASB since December 2025 and

  • complete a risk assessment and provide her and us with a clear plan to address the ASB with the frequency of updates

If it decides it cannot take any further action, it must provide her with reasons and explain how it will deal with the reports. It must provide evidence to us of this no later than the due date

No later than

25 June 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

8 June 2024

The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of ASB.

Between 16 August 2024 to 17 December 2025

The landlord issued 3 stage 1 complaint responses and 2 stage 2 complaint responses in which it said:

  • on 16 August 2024 (at stage 1) it was aware of the issues with neighbours, and continued to work with all residents
  • on 8 October 2024 (in a second stage 1 response) it had contacted her, offered rehousing advice, and the police were investigating a physical disagreement between her and a neighbour
  • it could not prove who broke her window, but it had carried out an “intervention” with the neighbour
  • it agreed to keep the case open and follow the police action
  • by 6 January 2025 (in a stage 2 response) it closed the ASB case with her agreement as the interventions made had reduced the ASB
  • it offered £50 for the delay in responding
  • on 27 November 2025 (in a third stage 1 response) the ASB reports were based on previous reports
  • it visited her neighbours and asked if she had reported her complaint to the police so it could follow this up
  • it agreed to complete an ASB case review and provide updates
  • on 17 December 2025 (in a second stage 2 response) the ASB reports she made were “historic allegations” which had been investigated
  • it had visited neighbours, had not received any ASB reports and had not identified any risk
  • it agreed to investigate the new reports of noise nuisance she made on 15 December 2025 in line with its policy

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident told us she still experiences ASB. She wants the landlord to compensate her for her costs while she was away from her property.

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 ASB

Finding

Service failure
  1. Under the landlord’s ASB policy, verbal abuse, threatening or violent behaviour, damage, noise, and drug use all amount to ASB. The policy required it to investigate ASB, assess its risk, offer support and advice, and to act. It had to respond to high-risk reports of ASB within 1 business day and to reports of a standard risk within 5 working days. It completed the following actions in respect of the ASB reported between 7 February 2024 and 2 August 2024:
    1. completed a risk assessment on 7 February 2024, identified a high risk and requested information from the police on that day
    2. offered the resident a meeting on 5 March 2024 to discuss the ASB
    3. completed a further risk assessment on 23 May 2024, following further reports of ASB between 3 April 2024 and 13 May 2024
    4. interviewed the neighbour on 22 May 2024 about the alleged assault on her, which was within 9 days of the report
    5. held a professionals meeting on 2 July 2024
    6. explained to her on 16 August 2024 it needed to confirm accounts as part of its investigations
  2. The resident cancelled the meeting arranged for 5 March 2024 and failed to attend 3 interviews between 5 June 2024 to 4 September 2024. This would have made it harder for the landlord to investigate the reports made. The steps it took in 2024 to investigate, work with the police, risk assess the ASB, and act, were in line with its ASB policy.
  3. Following further reports of ASB in February 2025 the landlord completed 2 risk assessments in that month and assessed a “standard risk”. However, there is no evidence it took action in relation to the noise reported. When the resident reported receiving a threatening and abusive letter on 12 June 2025 it:
    1. completed a risk assessment on 18 July 2025 which it assessed as “standard” risk
    2. agreed an action plan with her on 23 July 2025 and offered diary sheets within 5 working days of the risk assessment
    3. attempted a joint visit to her neighbours on 31 July 2025 and early August 2025
    4. said on 22 August 2025 it attempted to arrange a meeting with another resident who had also made allegations about the same neighbour  
    5. said on 1 September 2025 it was arranging a home visit to see the alleged perpetrators
  4. These actions were all in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. While the resident was away from the property between 13 July 2025 to early November 2025 there were no new incidents involving neighbours. It then took the following steps in line with its ASB policy when it:
    1. asked the resident on 4 November 2025 if she experienced any new incidents following her return
    2. offered her safety advice on 14 November 2025 and attempted to visit her on 18 November 2025
    3. asked for a contact number to discuss her ASB case on 27 November 2025
  5. In summary, the landlord did not act on the resident’s ASB report in February 2025 and April 2025. However, this did not affect its overall management of the ASB during the complaint process. This is because overall it showed it managed the resident’s reports proactively. However, it did not fully investigate the noise reports from December 2025 in line with its ASB policy. It did not complete a risk assessment or offer any advice or support to help the resident gather evidence of the noise. This failure would have likely caused her distress and inconvenience. However, we cannot say that without this failure the resident would not have experienced noise nuisance.
  6. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation which is in line with our compensation guidance. This allows for payments of this amount where there is a service failure, but which may not have overall affected the outcome for the resident.
  7. The resident wants the landlord to reimburse her costs while she lived away from the property. However, under its ASB policy it was under no obligation to. As she reports the ASB is ongoing we have ordered it to offer an apology and to complete an ASB case review.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Maladministration
  1. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in our Complaint Handling Code (April 2024). Its policy allows 20 working days for a stage 1 complaint response. This contrasts with our Code which states stage 1 complaint responses must be issued within 10 working days. The landlord and our duty to monitor team are aware of this discrepancy.
  2. The resident made multiple complaints about the landlord’s handling of ASB. Our Code states if a landlord fails to resolve all or part of a resident’s complaint it must be progressed to the next stage. We have found it took:
    1. 49 working days to issue a stage 1 response to her June 2024 complaint
    2. her complaint on 6 September 2024 as a separate complaint and issued another stage 1 response on 8 October 2024 rather than escalate it
    3. 53 working days to issue a stage 2 response following the escalation on 18 October 2025 (target of 20 working days)
    4. 8 working days to acknowledge her complaint of 17 October 2025 (target of 5 working days)
    5. 21 working days from its acknowledgement on 29 October 2025 to respond at stage 1 (target of 20 working days)
  3. The landlord issued its second stage 2 response in line with its complaint policy. It offered £50 for the delay in responding to the escalation on 18 October 2025 but did not acknowledge other failures or identify any learning. Its offer was not proportionate to the level of failing and the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  4. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and to pay her £100. This is in line with our compensation guidance and is inclusive of the amount offered. This allows for payments of this amount where a landlord’s failures have adversely affected a resident. Its compensation policy also allows for payments of this amount where there have been significant delays in complaint handling which have affected a resident.

Learning

  1. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations in handling the ASB, in terms of actions and particularly in relation to its complaint handling. It is important that landlords accept and progress complaints in a timely way and that fully separates them from ASB reports. Our learning from severe maladministration report (November 2024) contains useful learning on this issue (page 21).

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord’s record keeping was good overall.

Communication

  1. Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident was good.