City of Doncaster Council (202409587)

Background

1. The resident lives in 1-bedroom flat in a block of 4 properties. The landlord is an arm’s length management organisation (ALMO) of the local council. The landlord is aware of the resident’s health vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Investigation of counter allegations made about the resident’s behaviour.
   3. Response to the resident’s reports about the smell of dog faeces in the building.
   4. Handling of the resident’s reports about people smoking in communal areas.
   5. Response to the resident’s use of CCTV.
   6. Response to the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct.
   7. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. No maladministration with the landlord’s:
      1. Investigation of counter allegations made about the resident’s behaviour.
      2. Response to the resident’s reports about the smell of dog faeces in the building.
      3. Handling of the resident’s reports about people smoking in communal areas.
      4. Response to the resident’s use of CCTV.
      5. Response to the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct.
      6. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The Ombudsman found that the landlord:
   1. Did not investigate the resident’s initial report of ASB or complete a risk assessment or provide an action plan.
   2. Acted appropriately when investigating counter allegations.
   3. Took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports about the smell in the building.
   4. Took reasonable steps to investigate the reports of smoking and spoke to the alleged perpetrator.
   5. Appropriately reminded the resident of his obligations to abide by the appropriate legislation when using CCTV.
   6. Investigated the allegations of poor staff conduct.
   7. Provided complaint responses in line with 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.

Recommendations

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

The complaint procedure

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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

5. Since the landlord’s stage 2 response on 23 April 2024, the resident has continued to send us complaint information for multiple matters. On 6 and 13 October 2025 we explained to the resident that our role is to investigate the landlord’s handling of his complaint on 13 March 2024. We will not investigate historical or additional issues as they did not form part of the original complaint. If he has not already done so, the resident should consider raising his:
   1. additional complaints to the landlord as it must have opportunity to respond to his concerns
   2. dissatisfaction about the local council’s housing allocation policy directly to the council or speak to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) for guidance

What we did investigate

6. The landlord does not have a specific ASB procedure. However, information available on its website states the actions it will take when it receives a report of ASB. This includes completing a risk assessment and an action plan with the resident making the report.
7. The landlord states it will respond to ‘low priority’ and ‘medium priority’ ASB cases within 5 and 3 working days, respectively.
8. The landlord accepted in its stage 1 response that it did not visit the alleged perpetrator of ASB after receiving the resident’s reports in September 2023. Although the evidence shows the landlord was managing multiple complaints and counter-allegations, it is unclear what action it took to address the resident’s initial ASB concerns.
9. Furthermore, while the landlord has demonstrated its actions and communication beyond its stage 2 final response, we have not identified a risk assessment or action plan at the time of the resident’s reports.
10. On 6 and 8 March 2024, and 23 April 2024 the landlord informed the resident of the environmental health team regarding his reports of noise nuisance. It also offered the resident noise monitoring forms during this time. The evidence indicates the resident declined this option at this stage.
11. Furthermore, the landlord remained satisfied during its complaints process that it had received no further reports from the resident at the time. However, beyond the landlord’s stage 2 final response, the resident reported further incidents.
12. Because the landlord did not demonstrate taking steps to address the resident’s initial report, we have found service failure. We order it to pay £50 compensation and to contact the resident to assess the current ASB situation. We also recommend the landlord reminds the resident of the environmental health noise monitoring team.

13. The resident’s tenancy condition says the landlord has the right to seek possession of the property if the resident breaches his tenancy agreement. The landlord states it will always seek to resolve breaches with the resident before this point.
14. The landlord’s housing management policy states its approach to ASB and how it will investigate all complaints.
15. Having visited the resident’s block in and around February and March 2024 the landlord received counter allegations about the resident. We note the resident described the landlord contacting him about his alleged behaviour as “persecution.” While a counter allegation may cause upset, the landlord acted appropriately to investigate the information given to it. This was consistent with managing the terms and conditions of the resident’s tenancy.
16. The landlord was satisfied that it had discussed matters with him, and a warning letter was sufficient. While the resident may have been unhappy, we have identified no wrongdoing by the landlord. Its actions to remind the resident of his tenancy conditions was a proportionate response.

17. The resident reported the smell of dog faeces within the building. He said the smell affected all residents and the communal areas.
18. On 12 March 2024 the landlord wrote to update the resident. It said it had not identified any smell during its visits to the building. It asked the resident if this was still an issue. This showed the landlord’s efforts to investigate his concerns and its willingness to continue to monitor his reports.
19. The landlord visited the block on 5 occasions, and it did not identify any smell. On 18 March 2024 the landlord recorded speaking with other residents who were unable to confirm the allegations at this stage.
20. On 3 April 2024 the landlord asked the resident to provide the alleged perpetrators details, so it could speak to them. The landlord’s actions and follow up demonstrates its efforts to identify the potential cause.
21. After the landlord’s stage 2 response on 24 April 2025, we note the landlord continued to monitor the resident’s reports. This included further visits and discussions with residents. While we note the landlord identified an issue with a neighbour’s dog, these events took place beyond the landlord’s final response.
22. Our role is to assess how the landlord handled the initial report. In this case, the landlord tried to identify the cause of the smell by visiting regularly. This included visits by multiple staff members and discussions with other residents. While the resident states the landlord took too long to resolve the matter, its actions at the time of the complaint were reasonable.

23. The resident reported other resident’s smoking in communal areas including a dustbin shelter and fire exit. The landlord has demonstrated speaking with the alleged perpetrator on 18 March 2024 and reminding them of their tenancy terms and conditions.
24. Although the landlord did not share the details of its conversations with the resident, this was appropriate. This demonstrated the landlord considered its data protection responsibilities.
25. The landlord addressed this matter in its stage 1 and 2 responses. It offered to continue to monitor the situation and asked the resident for any further evidence or occurrences. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord acted on the resident’s reports and took steps to remind other residents not to breach their tenancies.

26. The resident’s tenancy agreement states he requires written consent to install CCTV. It says cameras must be fixed cameras, only view his own private space, and not look out on to any public areas. It also states the use of CCTV must meet the requirements of the Data Protection Act and Human Rights Act.
27. On 30 January 2024 the landlord said it would contact the resident again if it received further allegations or complaints about his behaviour. This included any concerns raised about his use of CCTV.
28. After a visit on 29 February 2024 the landlord sent a warning letter to the resident on 12 March 2024. It reminded him of his tenancy conditions and his obligation to abide by the data protection regulations when using CCTV. It sent the resident a copy of the appropriate legislation.
29. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision to issue him with a warning letter. He said he had received the landlord’s permission for CCTV 4 years earlier. The matter of consent is between the landlord and resident to resolve. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to review its consent and inform the resident of its position on this matter.
30. Having received reports about the resident’s use of CCTV, the landlord acted appropriately to remind him of his tenancy and legal obligations.

31. The resident complained that a member of the landlord’s staff “lied.”
32. On 30 January 2024 the landlord issued a complaint response about this matter. It considered the resident’s communication to its member of staff aggressive and unnecessary. It found evidence to support his allegations.
33. The resident repeated his allegations within this complaint. The landlord spoke with the member of staff and reviewed its customer records for the relevant time. This also included its previous complaint investigation. The landlord informed the resident it had identified no evidence to support his allegations. It also reminded him it would not tolerate disrespectful behaviour towards its staff.
34. The landlord has demonstrated acting on the resident’s allegations and informing him of its position. We have identified no evidence of wrongdoing.

35. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
36. The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement on time.
37. The landlord followed the expectations of the Code to arrange an extension for its stage 1 response. It also kept its promise and sent its stage 1 response ahead of its new deadline date.
38. The landlord sent both its stage 2 acknowledgement and final response on time.
39. While the landlord acknowledged and apologised for confusing neighbours and addresses in its response, the detriment of this error was minimal. The landlord’s apology was proportionate to this error as it had demonstrated explaining its position on each of the resident’s complaint points.

Learning

40. The landlord should consider how its ASB staff document risk assessments and action plans.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

41. The landlord may benefit from an ASB procedure to enable it to document and evidence its case management records.

Communication

42. The landlord has needed to co-ordinate a large volume of customer communication. In doing so, it has allocated a member of staff to manage these and work closely with the resident. This demonstrates the landlord’s actions to provide a consistent approach and to ensure effective communication.