We are aware of a third-party IT security incident that has impacted our case management system.

Whilst we investigate this and get our systems back online, you will be unable to submit a new complaint, view an existing complaint, or use our web chat or webform.

If you need to raise a new complaint, please email info@housing-ombudsman.org.uk or call us on 03001113000.

We’re working to restore our services as quickly as possible and will share updates when we can.

Thank you for your patience. We apologise for the inconvenience.

North Kesteven District Council (202432070)

Back to Top

 

 

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202432070

North Kesteven District Council

31 July 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. support to the resident in respect of alternative accommodation and banding.
    2. handling of the resident’s reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB).
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. Since August 2022 the resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, who is also the local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a purpose-built block. The landlord said the resident disclosed at the beginning of her tenancy that she had mental health issues.
  2. Records show the resident contacted the landlord at the end of October 2023 about a noise incident by her neighbour. She said the incident had triggered anxiety and she was feeling “unsafe”. Following this, the landlord contacted the resident’s neighbour to discuss the incident.
  3. The resident reported a further noise issue in mid-February 2024. At this time, the landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour again. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 February 2024. Among other things, she raised concerns that the landlord’s officer had spoken to her neighbour about her report. She said this had caused her additional distress.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident on 4 March 2024. It said:
    1. it was normal practice for it to discuss an ASB report with the other party, but it had not disclosed the resident’s details to her neighbour.
    2. the resident had recently told it that she has smelt cannabis from her neighbour’s property, and it had acted by sending her incident diary sheets to complete.
    3. it had also provided her with contact details for a support agency.
  5. Following a further report in April 2024, the landlord met again with the resident and her neighbour. It told the resident it had issued a warning to her neighbour. The resident reported further noise issues to the landlord in July 2024. She said the situation had been ongoing for a year and she questioned why issues had not been resolved.
  6. At the end of July 2024, the resident submitted a request for an ASB case review (previously called a community trigger). She told us that, around this time, she decided to live away from the property because of her ongoing concerns.
  7. An ASB case review involving the landlord, police and the resident was held on 2 September 2024. The outcome of this was sent to the resident on 5 September 2024. This said that measures taken against the resident’s neighbour were “appropriate and proportionate”. However, it said it recognised the resident’s perception of the behaviour was causing her significant anxiety. Among other actions, it said that the landlord would contact mental health services to explore further support available to the resident.
  8. On 4 November 2024, the resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord about the way it had handled her reports of ASB and “harassment”. She said she did not think the landlord had acted in line with the tenancy agreement when responding to issues she had experienced. She also said its officer had not taken appropriate steps to suggest she seek an ASB case review.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 20 November 2024. It said it had considered the matter at this stage as the resident had already engaged with it through the ASB case review. Among other things, it said:
    1. it had signposted the resident to talking therapies as it had realised from her account that her neighbour’s behaviour had impacted on her.
    2. it had acted within its policies, processes and procedures regarding her ASB case review.
  10. The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns. She said she has been unable to reside at the property, and she felt “invalidated” by its “lack of care”. She said she wanted compensation for the time she had been unable to use her own home and for the landlord to review its policies and procedures.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). Paragraph 41.d of the Scheme sets out that “the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concerns matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing.”
  2. The resident raised concerns about the support the landlord provided to her rehousing application. As this has been considered on medical grounds and the dispute is about banding – the council is not acting as a social landlord. They are discharging a statutory function under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996.
  3. After carefully considering all the evidence, the landlord’s handling of the rehousing request is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident may wish to consider referring her concerns to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident raised some concerns about the outcome of the ASB case review. This was a multi-agency review, administered by the landlord in its capacity as the local authority. The purpose of a ASB case review is so the relevant agencies can consider whether further action can be taken to address the reported ASB. The focus of our investigation is on whether the landlord itself responded reasonably and appropriately to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Handling of the resident’s ASB reports

  1. The resident said the first incident of noise from her neighbour was around August 2023. However, records show she began reporting issues to the landlord at the end of October 2023.
  2. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord should work with the resident to agree a suitable action plan following a report of ASB. The resident told it of an incident of noise (music, banging, shouting/screaming) by her neighbour at the end of October 2023. It took appropriate and timely steps to discuss the incident with her. During this contact it agreed that it would speak with the police and other neighbours before confirming the next course of action.
  3. Subsequently, the landlord contacted the police and another resident to obtain further information about the incident. That was appropriate and demonstrated it had taken reasonable steps to understand the incident the resident had reported. On 1 November 2023, the landlord told the resident of its plan to visit her neighbour to discuss the incident. Later, it updated her following the meeting and advised her to make contact should she experience further issues. These actions were reasonable. The landlord’s response to the report was timely. It agreed actions with the resident, and it updated her of the outcome of these actions.
  4. It is also clear the resident had told the landlord of the impact of the incident upon her. She said it had “triggered” anxieties and that she was feeling “unsafe” in her home because of her neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord was already aware of the resident’s vulnerability from information it had recorded at the beginning of her tenancy. Yet, there is no evidence it took any appropriate steps to complete a risk assessment.
  5. The Ombudsman has outlined its expectations for landlords dealing with ASB reports. An ASB policy should contain steps for creating the fundamentals of an effective response. This includes action plans, clear communication, risk assessments, and working with third party agencies. This is mirrored in the landlord’s own policy. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 statutory guidance states that “the relevant bodies should use their risk assessment procedures as part of the decision on whether the threshold is met”. It goes on to say that, “even where the threshold is not met, local agencies may wish to consider the possibility of hidden needs or risks which may require a response from a particular agency”.
  6. Although the landlord noted on 25 October 2023 that it had encouraged the resident to seek “emotional support”, it should have gone further than this. Completing a risk assessment at the outset would have helped it to fully understand the resident’s vulnerabilities and the risk of harm. It could then have considered appropriate action to signpost or refer the resident to additional support. That it did not do so was a failing by the landlord to be victim-centred in its response to the resident’s ASB report.
  7. The resident reported to the landlord similar noise issues in February 2024. Its contact with the resident and her neighbour to discuss the issues raised was timely. However, the resident later expressed concern that the landlord had contacted her neighbour prior to agreeing this action with her.
  8. The landlord’s ASB service standards state that it should work with the resident to agree a suitable action plan. In line with this, it would have been appropriate for it to agree or explain the action it planned to take in response to her February 2024 report. That is particularly so as she had told it in October 2023 that she was “scared” of repercussions should the landlord speak to her neighbour. She also explained that she planned to ask her mother to stay when it spoke to her neighbour, in case of any further issues.
  9. The landlord later explained to the resident that it had not disclosed her details to her neighbour. However, discussing/agreeing with the resident the action it planned would have allowed the landlord to reassure her in advance. It would also have allowed the resident to prepare for the action, such as by seeking support from family members.
  10. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response of March 2024 that it could have done more to advise her of the next steps in advance. It was also positive that it said that it would ensure that its procedure guided its officers to make a complainant aware prior to contacting the alleged perpetrator. We have recommended that the landlord review whether it now has adequate processes and guidance for its staff in respect of this.
  11. We acknowledge that the resident expressed her view in February 2024, and later, that the landlord should have taken action to evict her neighbour. We have seen evidence the landlord made some attempt to manage her expectations around this in February 2024. At this time, it told her that eviction of her neighbour was “not going to happen”. But there is no evidence it attempted to elaborate on this.
  12. A clear action plan would have provided the landlord with the opportunity to explain its approach to ASB, and the range of methods it had available under its ASB policy to try to improve the situation. It was also an opportunity for it to emphasise and explain that eviction would be a last resort and ultimately a decision for the courts. Its failure to take this action was a missed opportunity by the landlord to fully manage the resident’s expectations at an early stage. It was also contrary to its policy, which states that it should provide clear information on what action is available and appropriate to the circumstances.
  13. The landlord contacted the resident again later in February 2024. It provided her with incident diary sheets. This was a reasonable action in the circumstances and would assist her in recording the issues. Further, it took appropriate steps to contact the resident in March 2024, as it had agreed, to check if issues had continued. At this time, it recorded she said there had been no further noise issues from her neighbour. However, she told it how the situation was affecting her anxiety. It recorded that she said she was “barely leaving the house” and that she was worried her neighbour may “break into her flat with an axe”. The landlord offered the resident a referral to a tenancy sustainment officer at this time, which she accepted. That was appropriate action by the landlord given the concerns the resident raised about remaining at the property. However, it again failed to complete a risk assessment to help it fully understand her vulnerability and to assess the risk of harm.
  14. The landlord took reasonable action to discuss the resident’s further reports of noise issues with her neighbour in May 2024. We have also seen evidence that it took appropriate and proportionate escalating action towards her neighbour at this time. Further, it arranged to meet with the resident and the police to discuss issues. Records of this meeting show the landlord explained that it needed to balance the needs of all parties involved.
  15. The police told the resident during this meeting that there were no “criminal offences” it could deal with and that the issue remained a noise nuisance matter. However, the landlord also recorded that the resident said she was “scared” of her neighbour and “slept with a knife” because she was worried he might “murder” her. Again, there is no evidence it took steps to fully consider the resident’s vulnerability and the risk of harm by completing an appropriate risk assessment. That it had not done so at any point since October 2023 was a repeated failure to act in line with its ASB policy. This was a failure.
  16. We acknowledge the landlord had discussed and encouraged the resident to consider approaching a support agency and “other therapies” for her anxiety. It also noted in May 2024 that it offered her additional security for her flat. But this did not go far enough, given what she had said about how issues were affecting her. In October 2024, following the ASB case review, the landlord liaised with a support team who co-ordinated referrals for external agency support. At this time, the landlord wrote to the resident to request her consent to refer her to this support team. In the circumstances, given the resident’s vulnerabilities and what she had said about the impact of issues, the landlord should reasonably have considered this action at an earlier stage.
  17. The landlord told us it had no ASB procedures in place for staff during this period. Given the failings we have identified, we have ordered that it review whether it now has adequate ASB policies and procedures in place. This should be completed with the aim of ensuring its staff have guidance and understanding of the importance of completing appropriate action plans and risk assessments in response to ASB reports.
  18. The resident said in her complaint to the landlord in November 2023 that she considered more evidence could have been provided had an audio monitoring device been fitted. The landlord said in its complaint response that the local authority’s environmental health team had received no request from the resident for such device to be installed. However, there is also no evidence the landlord directed or supported the resident in how she might request such equipment. It should reasonably have done so.
  19. The landlord recorded in April 2024 that the resident had asked it to pass on details of her noise concern to the environmental health team. Yet there is no evidence it did so or that it told the resident how she could progress this herself. It noted in mid-July 2024 that the resident had told it of 2 further noise incidents by her neighbour in June 2024. The landlord said it had logged these incidents and would continue to monitor for further incidents.
  20. Given her reports had been ongoing for 9 months by this time, the landlord should reasonably have considered what other action it could take support the resident in evidencing the extent of issues. This could have included looking at other ways she could record issues. That it did not do so was a failing. Again, the landlord could have fully explored this through completing an appropriate action plan with the resident. Doing so could have reassured her that it was taking her reports and concerns seriously.
  21. When providing its stage 2 complaint response in November 2024 the landlord stated that it had arranged the ASB case review in line with timeframes set out in its policy. But this did not address the point the resident had raised in her complaint. She had expressed concern that its officer had not made her aware earlier that she could request an ASB case review. The landlord’s lack of response to this specific concern was a failing.
  22. The resident had told the landlord in May 2024 how the situation was affecting her. She expressed her view that “not enough” was being done to address the issue. While the landlord’s website and ASB policy provides information about the process for requesting an ASB case review, it would have been reasonable for it to make the resident aware of this process during its earlier meeting with her in May 2024. We have recommended that the landlord review whether it has adequate guidance for its staff about appropriately signposting residents to the ASB case review process.
  23. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It took some steps to signpost her to support. However, it failed to complete an appropriate risk assessment or action plan throughout its handling of her reports. It delayed in taking all appropriate steps to support her. We also found failings in the support it gave to the resident in recording noise issues she was experiencing.
  24. The resident has stated her belief that the landlord should have evicted her neighbour. She said she had paid rent living elsewhere since July 2024 and has articulated her fears about returning to the property due to the presence of her neighbour.
  25. We acknowledge and empathise with how the issues have affected the resident. However, as we explained earlier, eviction was action the landlord could only take as a last resort and with the agreement of the court. Significant corroborating evidence would be required to support it. It is also appropriate that the landlord should take account of the needs of all parties when considering a reasonable course of action.
  26. With consideration to all the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident. We have ordered that the landlord make a compensation award to the resident of £200. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance, and we consider it appropriately recognises the impact of the failings we have identified.

Complaint handling

  1. When the resident complained to the landlord in November 2024, she set out her concerns about the way it had addressed her reports of ASB and harassment. While the landlord’s response to this complaint was timely, it did not address all her concerns. The landlord did not attempt to consider or respond to her concerns about how it had addressed her ASB reports. Instead, it focused on the resident’s concerns about the outcome of the ASB case review. It did not set out whether it could consider her request for alternative accommodation under its management transfer options or if not, why. That was a failure.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that landlords should undertake thorough complaint investigations to address all aspects of a complaint. Instead, the landlord left some concerns without any response. As a result, it missed the opportunity to identify and acknowledge any failings in its earlier handling of ASB reports.
  3. Further, the landlord said it had reviewed the resident’s concerns at stage 2 of its complaints process as she had already engaged with it through an ASB case review. However, its ASB policy clearly sets out that an ASB case review does not replace the complaints procedure. It failed to provide the resident with a response at each stage of its complaints process. This was a departure from the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord’s own complaints procedure and was a complaint handling failure. We have ordered the landlord to remind its staff that an ASB case review does not replace any part of its complaints process.
  4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It did not fully respond to all her concerns. It also denied her the opportunity to have her complaint fully considered through its complaints process. With consideration to the circumstances and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident aimed at fully recognising the impact of these failings. We have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident of £150. This is in line with our remedies guidance. We consider it to be appropriate recognition of the impact on the resident of the landlord’s complaint handling failings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns support by the landlord in respect of banding is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
    2. complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident compensation of £350, made up of:
      1. £200 for the impact of failings in its handling of her ASB reports.
      2. £150 for the impact of its complaint handling failings.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. review whether it has adequate ASB policies and procedures in place. This review should be completed with the aim of ensuring its staff have adequate guidance and understanding of the importance of completing appropriate action plans and risk assessments. It should provide us with the outcome of this review within the same timeframe.
    2. remind its staff that an ASB case review does not replace any part of its complaints process.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord should:
    1. contact the resident to explore whether it can provide her with further assistance or support to resolve her current housing situation.
    2. review whether it now has adequate processes and guidance to its staff in respect of making a complainant aware prior to contacting the alleged perpetrator.
    3. review whether it has adequate guidance for its staff about appropriately signposting residents to the ASB case review process.