Arun District Council (202524839)

Decision
Case ID	202524839
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Arun District Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	29 January 2026

Background

1. At the time of the complaint, the resident lived in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a purpose-built block of 4 flats. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of Anti social behaviour (ASB) reports and his request to move.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. ASB.
   2. a managed move.
   3. the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. a managed move.
   2. the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord acknowledged it could have done more in its response to the resident’s ASB reports. However, it did not offer redress for this to put things right.
6. The landlord followed its managed move procedure in handling the managed move.
7. The landlord responded to the complaint on time. In line with its policy and the Code.

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. 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 26 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 or the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of ASB. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 26 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord review its complaints policy to ensure it includes all circumstances in which it will not deal with a complaint under its policy.
The landlord to review its staff training needs in regard to carrying out risk assessments and investigating ASB in line with its policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 June 2022	The resident told the landlord he did not feel safe at his property due to ASB from neighbours. He asked to be moved.
16 May 2024	The landlord approved a managed move application for the resident. On 30 May 2024, he was also accepted onto the landlord’s housing allocation scheme and given a banding.
24 July 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about ongoing ASB from neighbours, and that it had not managed moved him.
8 August 2025	The landlord responded at stage 1. It said: The resident reported an incident from March 2025. He had not reported this at the time. This limited its ability to respond. In June 2025, the resident made several reports of a person banging on his door and being verbally abusive. To take action it needed to be able to identify the perpetrator. It asked the resident to consider a door camera. Timescales for a managed move were unknown. This depended on availability of suitable properties.
8 August 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He said the complaint response only covered recent ASB reports. The resident said it told him previously not to mount anything to the outside of the building. He said the landlord and the police previously said they had enough evidence to move him.
2 September 2025	The landlord responded at stage 2. It said: It would not be reviewing its previous complaint responses. It should have reviewed the reports made since 2022 at stage 1. Without further evidence it could not identify potential perpetrators. It had recently visited the area to speak with residents and provide advice on reporting. It could have previously been more proactive. Including providing communication about concerns to residents in the area. The resident reported targeted ASB from 2022. He had provided video evidence and 2 diary sheets. The resident did not provide the specific evidence requested. It did not have enough direct evidence. To take tenancy action it needed to be able to identify perpetrators. On review of the video footage, it felt it had an opportunity to identify the person in the videos and take action. It did not find any evidence of poor staff conduct. It applied the managed move process appropriately. The suggestion to install a door camera was appropriate.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the stage 2 response. He brought the complaint to us for investigation. The resident said the landlord had not taken action and he wanted to be moved.
After the end of the complaints process	The landlord manged moved the resident in October 2025.

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	Handling of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

8. The resident raised previous complaints to the landlord. It provided stage 2 responses in November 2022 and May 2024. In July 2024 we determined the complaint from November 2022 was outside our jurisdiction. The resident brought his complaint from July 2025 to us for investigation in September 2025. We have not investigated the previous complaints.
9. The resident told us the situation had a detrimental impact on his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

10. In cases relating to ASB, it is not our role to decide if ASB occurred. We consider how a landlord has dealt with the reports it received, and if it followed its policies and good practice.
11. The landlord’s final response on 2 September 2025 reviewed its handling of ASB reports from July 2022 onward. The resident reported on 17 June 2022 that he felt unsafe due to police visits to a neighbour and drug equipment near his home. The landlord contacted him on 29 June 2022 to request more details. On 6 July 2022, the landlord said it had passed the matter to an ASB officer. It provided a named contact in line with the ASB policy.However, there is no evidence the landlord categorised the reports inline with its ASB policy at this stage. It did notrespond within the timeframes set out in the policy. This says it categorises reports about criminal behaviour as medium priority with a response time of 5 working days.
12. After the resident made a further report on 13 July 2022, the landlord opened an ASB case on 18 July 2022. It sent the resident a confirmation letter and an action plan, in line with its ASB policy. This requires an action plan and updates. However, it had delayed in opening a case following the first report on 17 June 2022.The landlord asked for details of the incidents and provided diary sheets for the resident to complete. It explained that it might not be able to take action without more information. The landlord had limited evidence, and its ASB policy states it cannot act where evidence is insufficient.
13. The landlord contacted the resident on 9 August 2022 to follow up. The resident had not returned diary sheets but reported noise from a neighbour. It confirmed to the resident on 18 August 2022 that it had visited the neighbour and provided advice about noise. This action was in line with its ASB policy which lists home visits as a possible intervention.
14. The landlord continued to follow up with the resident. It met with him on 8 September 2022. Notes stated he reported verbal abuse from a neighbour and confirmed he had informed the police but asked them not to act. The landlord closed the case on 15 December 2022 because it received no further reports or diary sheets. It explained this in a letter on 24 November 2022. This was consistent with its ASB policy.
15. The resident made further ASB reports on 6 March 2023. The landlord asked for more details. On 17 April 2023, he told the landlord he had recently reported banging on his door and verbal abuse to the police. The landlord asked for details of what happened and who was involved. It explained it could not log the incident without this information. The resident said he could not identify who was involved. The landlord followed up on 2 May 2023. There is no evidence the resident provided any further information as requested. However, the landlord did not consider interventions it could have taken under its ASB policy to help the resident gather evidence and identify the perpetrators.
16. Between 16 and 19 June 2023, the resident reported several ASB incidents. The landlord replied on 29 June 2023 and again asked for further details. The resident said the police would send this information. Records show the landlord contacted the police on 4 July 2023, in line with its ASB policy to work with partner agencies. At this stage, there is no evidence the landlord received any additional details about the incidents. However, it again failed to consider how it could assist the resident in evidence gathering.
17. On 10 September 2023, the resident reported another ASB incident and provided video evidence. The landlord responded the next day, asking him to confirm the perpetrator and complete diary sheets. He reported another incident on 23 September 2023, again with video evidence of someone slamming his window. The landlord said it needed more details, including the identity of the perpetrators, before reopening the ASB case. While it was reasonable to request further information. It was unreasonable not to open a case given the continued reports and the resident’s ongoing safety concerns. There was also no evidence it offered any assistance with collecting evidence at this stage outside of completing diary sheets himself.
18. The evidence shows the resident completed diary sheets between 16 September 2023 and 5 January 2024. Although it is unclear when he first sent them to the landlordor the action it took. It asked him to resend them in April 2024 for a managed move application. The diary entries met the landlord’s definition of ASB. The landlord approved a managed move for the resident on 16 May 2024. Its procedure allows this in exceptional circumstances. This includes risk of harm or unresolved neighbour disputes. This showed that, despite saying it lacked evidence to take tenancy action against perpetrators, it took the resident’s reports seriously.However, on receiving these reports it failed to follow its ASB procedure. It should have done an initial assessment, categorisation, contact, risk assessment, support referrals and action plan. This was not done.
19. On 2 June 2025 the landlord was aware of ASB outside the resident’s home from March 2025. The landlord’s records show it had not been informed of this at the time. It appropriately opened an ASB case and contacted the resident the next day for more information. In line with its ASB policy, it completed a risk assessment on 6 June 2025. There was no evidence that it completed a risk assessment previously. Given the number of reports and the resident’s concerns about safety this was a failure.
20. In its complaint responses, the landlord said its ability to act on the video was limited because the incident had not been reported at the time or to the police. The evidence shows the landlord did contact the police, who were unable to take action.However, the landlord had not offered any assistance to the resident in gathering evidence.
21. In June 2025, the resident made further reports of verbal abuse, banging on his door, and drugs. Each time, the landlord asked for more information to identify the perpetrators. On 27 June 2025, it explained it could not take action without knowing who was responsible. It confirmed this approach in its stage 2 response. There is no evidence the landlord could have taken tenancy action at this point because it did not know who the perpetrator was. However, the landlord could have used some of the ASB tools and interventions in line with its ASB policy to investigate this further such as home visits. The landlord did offer to apply for a loan of a doorbell camera for the resident from an internal department. The outcome of this was unclear. It failed to fully support the resident in gathering evidence. This was not line with the commitment in its ASB policy of a victim centred approach.
22. As acknowledged by the landlord in its stage 2 response, it could have been more proactive at the time of the resident’s ASB reports. The landlord identified that it could have spoken with other residents in the area and provided communication to residents about raised concerns and possible action on any breaches on tenancy. This would have been appropriate because although the resident was unable to identify the individual perpetrators, his reports consistently indicated the ASB was from neighbours. Here it missed an opportunity to attempt to intervene early as set out in its ASB policy.
23. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that following the resident’s complaint escalation, it had visited the flats and provided advice to residents about reporting ASB. This showed the landlord taking learning from the complaint.
24. In his complaint escalation, the resident said he had previously been told he could not install a doorbell camera. The landlord advised him to install this to help identify perpetrators in June 2025 and at stage 1.In its stage 2 response, the landlord said this was appropriate to support evidence‑gathering. Given it had no further evidence to identify the perpetrators of the June 2025 ASB reports, this was a reasonable response. However, this would have been frustrating for the resident who said he had received conflicting advice about permissions to install cameras. Considering the previous reports, the landlord could have offered this advice and support in installing a camera doorbell earlier to support evidence gathering. The outcome of the landlord’s application to loan the resident a camera doorbell it mentioned on 27 June 2025 was unclear.
25. There is no evidence the landlord previously gave conflicting information. Its website states residents need written permission to install CCTV. Its records show it discussed CCTV legislation with the resident during a meeting on 8 September 2022, although it is unclear what specific advice it gave him.
26. In his complaint escalation, the resident said the stage 1 response offered poor excuses to cover for staff. When assessing a complaint about landlord staff, we consider the landlord’s overall response. The resident did not raise any specific incidents of staff misconduct in this case. He had raised concerns about individual staff in earlier complaints. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response on 2 September 2025 that it had not reviewed those previous complaints. It said it had considered his concerns and found no evidence that staff had offered poor excuses. This was an appropriate response and showed the landlord considered his concerns.
27. In its stage 1 response on 8 August 2025, the landlord provided details of support services, including victim support, mediation, and a crime charity. However, there is no evidence it offered this earlier or considered referrals to support agencies as required by its ASB policy.
28. In summary, the resident reported ASB over more than three years. The landlord repeatedly requested further information. The resident did not always provide dates, times, or details of perpetrators, which limited the landlord’s ability to act. However, it failed to support him with gathering evidence. When the resident identified a perpetrator in 2022, the landlord acted appropriately. While it consistently explained what it could and could not do without evidence. The landlord later acknowledged it could have been more proactive including with identifying perpetrators. It supported the resident by approving a managed move. However, it did not show that it completed required risk assessments or provided information about support agencies before June 2025, as its ASB policy requires.
29. The landlord apologised and upheld the resident’s complaint. It took learning from the complaint and took action. However, it did not provide any redress. Given the timeframe of the reports and the likely distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, this did not go far enough to put things right.

Complaint	Handling of a managed move
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

30. Alongside the managed move process, the resident was also registered for the landlord’s housing register. This included being provided with a banding in line with its housing allocations policy. The resident requested a review of his banding in May 2024. In this case, the council was acting in its function as a local authority and not in its function as a landlord. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). We have investigated the landlord’s handling of the managed move only.
31. The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised the complaint about removal costs during the managed move. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue.

What we did investigate

32. The landlord’s managed move procedure states that this process provides permanent rehousing for residents whose exceptional circumstances cannot be resolved through the standard housing allocations policy banding. It allows the landlord to make a direct allocation of accommodation to the resident.
33. The landlord confirmed in a previous stage 1 response on 5 April 2024 that, although it had discussed housing options with the resident, it had not approved a managed move. As part of the complaint outcome, it agreed to put him forward for one. The landlord appropriately sent him an explanation of the process on 12 April 2024. Given he requested a managed move due to ASB and safety concerns, it was also appropriate for the landlord to explain what he should do if he felt at risk, which it did. It additionally provided information about mutual exchange on 18 April 2024.
34. The landlord submitted the managed move application on 22 April 2024. It was reviewed promptly and approved on 7 May 2024. The landlord informed the resident of the outcome on 16 May 2024. These are the steps set out in the landlord’s managed moved procedure. This also says residents will also need to apply to the housing register. The landlord sent the resident details about this on 16 May 2024 in line with its procedure.
35. On 16 May 2024, the landlord told the resident it would contact him directly if he was nominated for a property. In his complaint, the resident said he was still waiting for a managed move. The landlord confirmed this in its stage 1 response and explained that timescales were unknown and depended on the availability of a suitable property. This was consistent with the information it previously provided about waiting times.
36. In its stage 2 response on 2 September 2025, the landlord confirmed it had contacted the resident about an available property. The landlord confirmed the resident’s managed move was completed in October 2025.
37. Once approved for a managed move the landlord provided the resident with details of the process. While the resident waited 16 months for a property to become available, the landlord explained the reasons for this. It also provided communication about alternative options. Overall, the landlord acted in line with its managed move procedure.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

38. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024 sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s complaints policy complies with the timescales in the Code. It must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 and stage 2 within 20 working days.
39. The landlord responded to the complaint on time at both stages.
40. In his complaint escalation, the resident said the landlord and police previously told him they had enough evidence to move him. The landlord had addressed this concern in a previous stage 2 response in May 2024. In its stage 2 response on 2 September 2025, the landlord said it was not reviewing the previous complaint responses. The Code says if a landlord decides not to accept a complaint it must be able to evidence its reasoning.
41. The landlord said this was because the previous complaints concluded at the time of the final responses and it provided clear routes of escalation. This was in line with its complaints policy. This says there is no further appeal to the landlord following completion of a review at stage 2 and provides escalation details.

Learning

42. The landlord explained its reasoning for not considering previous complaints. However, its complaints policy does not specifically include matters that have previously been considered under the complaints policy as circumstance in which a complaint matter will not be considered.  We have made a recommendation for it to review its policy.
43. The landlord did not consistently complete risk assessments. The landlord should carry out risk assessments at the start of ASB investigations. The landlord acknowledged that it was not proactive enough to identify perpetrators and take action. In this case it failed to provide assistance to the resident with evidence gathering.We have made a recommendation for it to review its staff training on its ASB policy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. The landlord-maintained good records of the ASB reports and communication with the resident.