We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

City of Doncaster Council (202422091)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422091

City of Doncaster Council

30 April 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 response about the resident’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports.

Background

  1. The resident was a tenant of the landlord between 2016 and January 2025. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident is vulnerable, has young children, and was pregnant in the timeframe of the complaint.
  2. The resident made reports from at least 2021 about antisocial and criminal behaviour on her estate. The evidence shows that the landlord considered previous reports and took action such as speak to parties, send warning letters, and liaise with other agencies such as the police. The landlord noted in 2023 that, due to the resident’s fear of reprisals, she intended to report crimes anonymously and agreed to keep records that could be anonymised in the event of legal enforcement action.
  3. In January 2024, the resident made various reports that included noise nuisance, neighbours smoking cannabis, kids causing nuisance on electric scooters, people causing damage to a neighbour’s property, neighbours having a party at unsocial hours, and a neighbour using her name and address to order taxis. She confirmed that she reported some issues to the police but said she did not want the landlord to contact perpetrators for fear of reprisals.
  4. In correspondence, the landlord said it would review footage the resident supplied, monitor matters, raise with other agencies and look at the prospect of a camera in the area. It said youths riding on scooters was not a breach of tenancy conditions. It said that noise nuisance was investigated via the local authority’s noise monitoring equipment or noise app but without evidence it could not take enforcement action. It said that if she did not wish it to contact neighbours about issues, there was no action it could take to prevent them happening. It acknowledged she was afraid to report incidents due to fear of reprisals but it encouraged her to do so and assured her it would treat reports with strict confidence. It said it would continue to monitor the situation in her area and would take tenancy enforcement action, if appropriate, should any further incidents occur.
  5. In mid June 2024, the resident made a further report about a neighbour’s visitors jumping on her car and removing the numberplate, which she reported to the police. She also raised concerns with the wider estate such as her child finding needles, people hurting dogs and people stealing bikes. The landlord spoke to the resident and a neighbour about the visitors and sent a warning letter. The resident subsequently chased about the other issues and complained about a lack of callback from the ASB team.
  6. In early July 2024, landlord staff contacted the resident after returning from leave. They confirmed staff had spoken to the neighbour about their visitors and sent a warning letter. They noted that staff had spoken to the resident about the needles and said investigations about an address were ongoing. They asked her to provide further information about the dog issue as she had not given an address and the police were unaware of such issues. They asked if there had been any further incidents and asked this again in mid July 2024.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 18 July 2024. It noted that staff had tried to contact the resident and left a voicemail but were yet to hear from her. It noted that after the resident reported that a neighbour’s visitor had jumped on her vehicle, it spoke to her and the alleged perpetrators and sent a tenancy breach letter. It noted the police said the resident was taking no further action as the perpetrator had apologised to her and agreed to pay for damage. It provided contact details for her to discuss the issue with staff if she wished.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 August 2024. She said she did not feel the landlord had investigated all her concerns correctly and said she wanted someone to review all her complaints and evidence. She said that she and her children should not be living in the area and expressed a desire to move.
  9. In late August 2024, the landlord contacted the resident, after which she expressed reluctance to report any further incidents due to concerns about her safety. She expressed concern that perpetrators still lived on the estate, there were no cameras and there was limited enforcement.
  10. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 5 September 2024. It detailed events and actions since June 2024. It noted that staff had updated the resident about incidents and asked her if there were any new incidents so it could investigate these. It noted she had said she was afraid to report anything else. It also noted she had provided evidence and allegations but had requested it did not use them due to fear of reprisals. It said it understood and respected this but explained this made it difficult to advance the case. It said the case remained closed as she did not want to report any further incidents or want it to act on what she had reported. It said this hindered its ability to resolve current issues. It said the relevant team were empathetic towards her situation and would find a way for her to discreetly make contact so that potential repercussions can be avoided. It provided information about the resident’s current banding and mutual exchange.
  11. The resident says she subsequently moved out of the property around late December 2024 due to previous threats and incidents. In late January 2025, the resident reported that someone had driven a truck into her empty property, which the landlord discussed with the police, and she handed in her notice.
  12. The resident is unhappy that more antisocial behaviour happened, she left her home with her children while she was pregnant, and her house was ram raided. She said that she was suicidal due to the ASB and had issues bonding with her baby due to the impact on her. She also said that her daughter was affected by issues on the estate, such as watching a dog fight, and experienced issues with sleeping, weight and school.
  13. She raises dissatisfaction that the landlord said it was not taking further action because she was not willing to cooperate and that people causing ASB continued to cause it. She says it did not acknowledge she could not report things for the safety of her, her children and her unborn child. She raises dissatisfaction that it did not acknowledge all the issues she had raised in the past 3 years, time and trouble she went to and failed callbacks. She also raises dissatisfaction that it continued to charge her full rent and did not offer compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident had significant concerns about ASB she experienced, what was happening on her estate, and reporting incidents. She has raised dissatisfaction that the landlord did not do more, that ASB issues continued, and that this resulted in someone driving a truck into her property between when she vacated it and handed in her notice. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s situation and understands how distressing this and other issues such as dog fights must have been for the resident, who we note was pregnant when left her property with her young children.
  2. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. It is also not our role to decide on matters such as tenancy breach in the same way as the courts, or decide what correct courses of action were based on hindsight and later events. The Ombudsman assesses how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assesses whether it followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances.

The landlord’s response about the resident’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports.

  1. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
  2. Following the resident’s reports, it was necessary for the landlord to respond to her concerns and to take action in accordance with its ASB policies. For example, contact the resident, discuss the case with alleged perpetrators and other agencies, monitor the situation with other agencies, and deal with reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner.
  3. In this case, the landlord took reasonable action in response to the resident’s reports in the timeframe of the complaint. It responded to specific reports of a neighbour’s visitors jumping on her car and causing damage. It reviewed evidence, discussed the issue with the resident and her neighbour, involved appropriate parties such as an ASB and safeguarding manager and the police, and sent a warning letter. It is evident it sought to make the resident feel supported, but it was respectful of her desire for it not to act on other reports about specific neighbours due to her concerns about her safety.
  4. The landlord reviewed and responded to the resident’s other concerns about the wider estate in a generally timely way, although she did experience a delay of around a week receiving an update in June 2024, due to staff leave. While this was the case, it is evident staff updated her on their return, which reasonably made up for this delay. It sought to obtain further information about dog issues and discussed this with the police.
  5. The landlord shows it understood the resident’s concerns, her reluctance to make reports, and her reluctance for it to act on reports. It was reasonable to say its ability to help with specific ASB reports was limited if she did not want it to take any action. It is understandable that it will require details of incidents and the ability to communicate with those allegedly involved, to try to help stop any ASB. The resident’s reluctance for the landlord to act on specific reports she made, and later reluctance to make reports, will have limited its ability to help and exhaust reasonable ASB interventions set out in its policies for specific issues she experienced.
  6. The landlord evidently continued to review suitable action although the resident did not want it to act on specific reports, which was appropriate. It considered reports, encouraged her to continue to make them, and reassured her that it would treat these in confidence. This was in line with previous reassurance it gave her that it could anonymise reports in the event of legal enforcement action. It worked with the police and sought to discuss concerns about the estate with them and the local authority. It showed an appropriate commitment to take enforcement action if any incidents merited this.
  7. The resident expresses specific dissatisfaction that the landlord did not do more to prevent ASB issues. The issues reported by the resident are troubling and the Ombudsman understands the significant concern she and her family were caused by these, and by events around the time she left the property. However, we see no evidence of any ASB reports from the resident in the complaint timeframe that the landlord failed to consider or take reasonable action for. We also see no evidence where the landlord or other agencies such as the police considered more action was warranted than was taken.
  8. Overall, while the Ombudsman understands that the resident’s experience on her former estate was very distressing for her, and we empathise with what she and her family have been through, the landlord shows it took her concerns seriously and responded reasonably given the issues it was provided the opportunity to assist with. When she complained, it acknowledged her experiences, reviewed events, and addressed her concerns in an evidence-based way. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration in the landlord’s response about the antisocial behaviour reports.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response about the resident’s antisocial behaviour reports.