Brighton and Hove City Council (202441883)

Decision
Case ID	202441883
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Brighton and Hove City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	20 November 2025

Background

At the time of the events considered by this investigation the resident lived in a 1 bed flat. The flat was on the first floor of a house which was converted into 2 flats. In June 2022 the resident began reporting antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her downstairs neighbour (the Perpetrator). She reported noise nuisance, drug use, criminal behaviour, and violence. She made several complaints to the landlord about its decision to let the property to the Perpetrator, its handling of the ASB, and the standard of temporary accommodation it moved her to because of the ASB. In September 2023 the resident’s property was destroyed by fire in an arson attack intended for the Perpetrator.
The resident has post-traumatic stress disorder.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the allocation of the neighbouring property.
2. Reports of ASB.
3. Concerns about the standard of the temporary accommodation.
4. Concerns about the property it permanently transferred her to.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the allocation of the neighbouring property.
2. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of the temporary accommodation.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the flat it transferred her to after the fire.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns about the allocation of the neighbouring property

The landlord accepts it failed to apply a sensitive let. While it apologised for this, the resident had to make 2 complaints before it accepted the impact this had on her experience of ASB.

Reports of ASB.

There was a series of serious failings in the landlord’s handling of the ASB. It did not adhere to its own policy and procedure and failed to follow statutory guidance. It failed to carry out timely investigations, communicate with the resident appropriately, and effectively manage the resident’s expectations.

Concerns about the standard of the temporary accommodation.

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the standard of the accommodation. It explained it was trying to find alternative accommodation but that, due to her requirements, options were limited. It also apologised for failing to extend the hotel stay and offered proportionate compensation.

Concerns about the property it permanently transferred her to.

There is no evidence the landlord coerced the resident into accepting its offer. It responded reasonably to her concerns about cleanliness and ASB.

Complaint handling.

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaints in line with the timeframes in 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 provided by the Chief Executive Officer. 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 18 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,250 made up as follows: £200 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns about the allocation of the neighbouring property. £1,800 offered in its complaint responses for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. £250 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its complaint handling. 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 18 December 2025
3	Compensation order (based on rent) The landlord must pay the resident £844. This is based on 25% of the rent paid between June 2022 and September 2023 at a weekly rent of £66.47 for 2022/2023, £71.12 for 2023/2024 for 49 weeks. This is to recognise her reduced enjoyment of the property due to the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB.	No later than 18 December 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 July 2022	The resident complained (Complaint 1) that the landlord had failed to treat the neighbouring property as a ‘sensitive let’ as it had assured her it would. She said as a result she had experienced ASB which had worsened her PTSD symptoms. She also said there was no sound insulation between the flats and asked the landlord to install some.
27 July 2022	The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 1. It accepted it had failed to apply a sensitive let and apologised for this. However, it said this would have made “little difference” in this case as it had little information about the Perpetrator that would have given it “cause for concern”. The landlord said it had been investigating her ASB reports and had warned the Perpetrator about his behaviour. It said it would carry out a survey of the property to see if it could take any additional steps to reduce noise transference. It stressed it could not make any guarantees about this.
2 August 2022	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had assured her it would apply a sensitive let because she had suffered severe ASB from the previous neighbour. She disagreed that its failure to apply a sensitive let had made “little difference” in her case. She said the Perpetrator was a criminal who had recently been to prison for violence.
15 September 2022	The landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 1. It reiterated its stage 1 position regarding the sensitive let and added that the Perpetrator would still have been offered the property if a sensitive let was in place. However, it offered her £200 compensation for the distress its failure to apply the sensitive let had caused. It said it had inspected the property and was arranging for a consultant to make recommendations regarding noise transference.
30 December 2022	The resident complained (Complaint 2) about the standard of the temporary hotel accommodation. She said it was “filthy” and there were issues with the behaviour of other guests. She also explained the hotel had said her stay was due to end that day and the landlord had not extended it. She had been unable to get hold of anyone within the landlord to resolve this and was worried she would be homeless.
5 February 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 2. It explained it was the housing officer’s role to extend her temporary accommodation stay but that he had left the organisation without notice without doing so. It apologised for the distress this had caused and said it would try to move her to different temporary accommodation.
6 February 2023	The resident escalated Complaint 2 as she said the landlord had not given her a concrete resolution. She asked it to guarantee it would move her to suitable accommodation.
1 March 2023	The landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 2. It said: It could not guarantee to move her but was doing all it could to find suitable accommodation. There was limited accommodation available due to her specific preferences about facilities and because she had a dog. It had contacted the hotel about her concerns and it had would clean her room at the same time each week. It offered her £75 compensation for the distress she experienced because of its failure to renew her hotel booking.
19 June 2024	The resident complained (Complaint 3) that she had experienced ASB because of the landlord’s failure to apply a sensitive let. She added that it’s handling of the ASB was not good enough and it had lied to her and said it would evict the Perpetrator. She also said she was unhappy in her new home as there were issues with ASB and poor cleanliness in the communal areas. She said she felt it had coerced her into accepting its offer of the property.
3 July 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 3. It said: Even if it had applied the sensitive let, the property would still have been let to the Perpetrator. It had followed its ASB policy and procedure and had acted proportionately and in line with housing law. Progress was “delayed” by her temporary decant to a hotel. Once she returned to the property and resumed reporting of ASB incidents, it had extended the Perpetrator’s introductory tenancy and eventually gained possession of the property.
11 September 2024	The resident escalated Complaint 3. She said the landlord had not warned her that moving into temporary accommodation would stop progress in the ASB case. She said it had told her that the delays were due to the housing officer leaving without notice. She added that because of its poor handling of the ASB she had endured “months of hell”, the destruction of all her belongings, and she had almost died.
18 December 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 3. It said: It had failed to address the issue with her neighbour within an adequate timeframe. While it managed the case appropriately from January 2023 onwards, there were failures prior to this. It did not have access to relevant information about the Perpetrator’s criminal history. If it had that information and applied a sensitive let, it would likely not have let the property to him. It had not coerced her into accepting its offer of a new property. It was investigating her concerns about cleanliness and ASB in the block. If she wished, she could apply for a mutual exchange to another property. It offered her £1,800 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its ASB handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident escalated her complaints to the Ombudsman in January 2025 as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She felt it had not acknowledged the impact its failings had had and that the redress it had offered was insufficient.

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	Concerns about the allocation of the neighbouring property.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has acknowledged that, while it assured the resident it would apply a sensitive let to the neighbouring flat, it did not do so. It has acknowledged this was a failing.
Initially the landlord maintained the failing made “little difference” in the issues the resident was experiencing. It said that if a sensitive let had been in place it would have still let the property to the Perpetrator.
The landlord maintained this stance until, in its final response to Complaint 3, it acknowledged that had it applied a sensitive let and known about the Perpetrator’s criminal history, it likely would not have let the property to him.
The resident had to raise 2 formal complaints about this issue before the landlord acknowledged the impact its failings, this was unreasonable. Had it acknowledged this sooner it would have avoided unnecessary time and trouble for the resident and helped to restore the landlord tenancy relationship.
While the landlord has apologised for its failings it has not offered any financial redress specifically for this issue. Our redress guidance suggests that where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident, compensation of between £100 and £600 is appropriate. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to this issue.

Complaint	Reports of ASB.
Finding	Severe maladministration

During the events of this case the resident reported at least 60 separate incidents of ASB to the landlord. Between June 2022 and September 2023 she reported noise nuisance from shouting and loud music, drug taking, fighting, and threats of violence.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states it will carry out a risk assessment with the victim. Statutory guidance issued alongside the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 states landlords should assess the risk of harm to the victims, and any potential vulnerabilities, when they receive a complaint about ASB. It also states that risk assessments should be updated regularly as vulnerability and risk are not static concepts.
In this case the landlord completed 1 risk assessment in August 2023. This was 14 months after the resident’s first report. This was not in line with the landlord’s procedure or with statutory guidance and was therefore a failing.
On several occasions the resident told the landlord the impact the ASB was having on her mental health. In June 2022 she said she was “on the verge of needing serious mental health assistance” and that her existing PTSD was being worsened. In February 2023 she explained the ASB was making her life “unbearable” and in August 2023 she said she had considered suicide as a result.
Despite the seriousness of the resident’s statements, we have seen no evidence that the landlord acted. It is concerning that it did not adequately acknowledge her concerns about her mental health in its communication with her. Nor did it make safeguarding enquiries or refer the resident for any support. Ignoring her disclosures was unsympathetic and insensitive to the resident’s vulnerability.
The resident asked the landlord in June 2022 to install sound insulation. She repeated this request on several further occasions. Internal landlord communications show the landlord was concerned that, because the property was a converted house, the limited options for installing insulation would be “expensive”. It commented that if it did this for one property “more [would] want the same”.
The landlord carried out an inspection in August 2022 to see whether it could install sound insulation. It has not provided us with evidence of the survey’s findings. In February 2023 the resident asked for an update on her request for insulation. It responded 3 weeks later and said it would carry out acoustic testing. We have seen no evidence that any such testing was completed or that any further action was taken.
We accept that landlords must consider the cost of carrying out works to properties. However, there is no evidence that it carried out any meaningful investigations into the possibility of installing insulation or the cost of such works. Doing so would have allowed it to balance the cost of the works against the benefits of doing so for the resident.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will refer noise related complaints to Environmental Health (EH). However, despite noise being a key component of the ASB, it did not signpost the resident to EH until February 2023, almost 8 months after the first report of noise nuisance.
Reviews of the case by the landlord in October 2022, January 2023, and April 2023 identified several shortcomings in its investigations. It noted:
1. Gaps in record keeping. Several warning letters had not been saved.
2. It had not:
  1. Carried out enquiries into support needs or equalities issues in relation to the Perpetrator.
  2. Identified whether there were other witnesses.
Despite identifying in October 2022 that it needed to identify any other witnesses, the landlord failed to carry out any investigations until February 2023. This was an unreasonable delay.
During a 15-month period, 3 different officers took over management of the ASB case. We note that 2 officers left with no notice. We acknowledge that staff turnover is unavoidable and difficult for the landlord to manage. However, it noted itself in a case review in April 2023 that “too many changes of case officer” had caused “delays in case progression”.
During the case the landlord sent 10 warning letters to the Perpetrator. We acknowledge that it must issue a warning when a tenant breaches the terms of their tenancy agreement and give them the opportunity to change their behaviour. However, it continued to issue warnings advising the Perpetrator it would take legal action if his behaviour continued. It then failed to follow through on its warnings. It is therefore unsurprising that he did not take the warnings seriously.
There was some evidence of multi-agency working by the landlord. Early in the case it sought information from the police regarding the Perpetrator. It also liaised with several agencies who were involved with him. However, there were several missed opportunities for more effective multi agency working.
In October 2022 there was a police incident at the Perpetrator’s property. The police confirmed to the landlord that there were knives around the property and evidence of drug use. This was independent evidence that the Perpetrator had breached the terms of his tenancy. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not consider taking further action at this stage.
In February 2023 the probation service raised concerns that the Perpetrator was at risk of violence and needed to be moved. They provided details of previous incidents to evidence these concerns. The landlord provided information about applying for rehousing but did not carry out any further investigation or risk assessments.
The individuals who had been threatening the Perpetrator later mistook the resident’s home for his when they carried out the arson attack. We acknowledge the landlord could likely not have predicted or prevented this event. However, it should reasonably have carried out a risk assessment when it became aware of the threats towards the Perpetrator. Statutory guidance accompanying the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 states landlords must consider the impact of ASB on communities. It was unreasonable that it did not consider the wider risk to the community from those threatening the Perpetrator.
In August 2023 the resident said that one of the Perpetrator’s guests had threatened to “smash [her] face in”. She reported this incident to the police. The landlord did not contact the police following this report to ascertain what action they were taking. This was a missed opportunity to gather further corroborating evidence to support enforcement action.
Throughout this case the landlord failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations. Between August 2022 and October 2022 it advised her it was issuing a “final warning”, “proceeding with enforcement action” and “taking legal action to bring the tenancy to an end”. In February 2023 it said it felt it had enough evidence to serve a notice to terminate the Perpetrator’s introductory tenancy but then, after a management review, said possession action was not proportionate. It is understandable that the resident felt the landlord was not giving her consistent information.
In November 2022 the landlord moved the resident into temporary accommodation in a hotel for respite from the ASB. That it did so was positive, particularly given the impact of the ASB on the resident’s mental health. However, in January 2023 it explained that, because she had been away from her home and not reporting further incidents, there was a lack of evidence of recent ASB. It had not told the resident when it offered her temporary accommodation that this may impact the evidence it gathered to support enforcement action. She was therefore unable to make an informed decision about whether to remain in her home to assist in evidence gathering or move into temporary accommodation.
The landlord has offered the resident £1,800 in relation to failings in its ASB handling. However, it failed to acknowledge the full extent of the failings identified by this investigation in its responses. It also failed to set out how it would prevent similar failings from happening in future. We therefore find severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the ASB.
The landlord’s offer of compensation was significant and generally in line with our remedies guidance for distress and inconvenience where there has been severe maladministration. However, given the serious detriment caused to the resident by a series of significant failings by the landlord over an extended period, we do not consider the amount offered to be sufficient.
In line with our approach to compensation, in this case we consider it appropriate and proportionate to order the landlord to pay additional compensation for the resident’s reduced enjoyment of the property during the period of the landlord’s severe maladministration. We have calculated the compensation at approximately 25% of the rent paid by the resident from June 2022 to September 2023 (excluding the time she was in temporary accommodation). The landlord should pay this £844 in addition to the £1,800 it offered in its final complaint response.

Complaint	Concerns about the standard of the temporary accommodation.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord moved the resident into temporary hotel accommodation on 1 November 2022 for respite from the ASB.
On 29 December 2022 the resident was informed by hotel staff that her stay had not been extended and her booking ended the following day. The resident contacted the landlord and said she was concerned she would be made “homeless”.
The landlord extended the hotel booking on 30 December 2022. It apologised in its response to Complaint 2 that it had not extended the booking and acknowledged the distress this had caused her. It offered her £75 for this. This was proportionate.
The resident also complained about the cleanliness of the hotel. She described it as “filthy” and “mouldy”. She also said it had provided her with “soiled” bedding.
In its complaint response the landlord said it was satisfied it was doing all it could to find her alternative temporary accommodation. It explained the options available were limited because the resident had a dog and wanted accommodation with a bath.
We acknowledge that the resident’s requirements would have restricted the options the landlord had to move the resident. The evidence shows it was actively searching for hotel and holiday let accommodation that fulfilled her requirements. The landlord also contacted the hotel to raise the resident’s concerns about cleanliness and the hotel agreed to carry out cleaning at the same day and time each week. This was reasonable.
Overall, the landlord recognised its failing in not extending the resident’s hotel booking and offered her appropriate compensation. On becoming aware of the unsatisfactory cleanliness of the hotel, it contacted the hotel to address this. This was reasonable. We therefore find reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of the temporary accommodation.

Complaint	Concerns about the property it permanently transferred her to.
Finding	No maladministration

In December 2023 the landlord offered the resident a new tenancy in a newly built block of flats.
The resident initially had reservations about the new property because it was small and overlooked the entrance to the block and the carpark. The landlord sought to reassure the resident by describing the benefits of the property. It also made her aware of her options and explained she did not have to accept the offer.
In March 2024 the resident said she would “gladly” accept the offer of the property. She moved in in April 2024.
In May 2024 the resident reported that she was unhappy with the property and that the landlord had “coerced” her into accepting its offer of the property.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord coerced the resident into accepting its offer of the new flat. Indeed, it clearly explained that she did not have to accept the offer. The resident, having sought advice from her therapist, said she wanted to accept the offer.
In its final complaint response the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about cleanliness and ASB in the block. It also provided information on how she could apply for a mutual exchange. This was reasonable and proportionate.
The landlord clearly advised the resident that she did not have to accept its offer of the property and, despite initial reservations, she said she accepted it. The landlord has reasonably addressed the resident’s concerns about issues in the block. We therefore find no maladministration in its handling of her concerns about this issue.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 1 within the timeframes outlined in its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, it took it 32 working days to provide its stage 2 response.
We have seen no evidence that it advised the resident of the delay or requested an extension to its response timeframe in line with its policy and the Code. While it apologised for the delay, it did not offer any further redress.
It took the landlord 25 working days to provide its stage 1 response to Complaint 2. This exceeded the 10-working day timeframe in its policy and the Code. It did not request an extension to its response timeframe. While it apologised for the delay, it did not offer any further redress.
It took the landlord 70 working days to provide its stage 2 response to Complaint 3. It again failed to request an extension to the response timeframe. It again apologised for the delay in its response but failed to offer any financial redress.
The landlord finally acknowledged in its stage 2 response to Complaint 3 that, had it applied a sensitive let, it would likely not have let the property to the Perpetrator. That it acknowledged and apologised for this was positive. However, it was unreasonable that the resident had to raise 2 formal complaints about this before it acknowledged the impact its failings had on her.
Overall, there were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our redress guidance suggests that where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident, compensation of between £100 and £600 is appropriate. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Record keeping

The landlord identified in its internal ASB case review that there were gaps in record keeping. It stated there were several warning letters which had not been saved.
We have not seen any other notable issues in the landlord’s record keeping. We have therefore not made any orders or recommendations in this regard.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor throughout its ASB handling. On several occasions she had to chase for updates on the case and often did not receive responses to her communications for several weeks, if at all. This caused her avoidable distress as she felt alone in her situation.