Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202337870)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337870

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

26 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s request to move.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident was a tenant of the landlord between December 2020 and until the tenancy ended in August 2025. The property was a 1 bedroom ground floor flat, and the landlord was a local authority. The resident said he moved out of the property in August 2023, but his belongings remained there until his tenancy ended. The landlord said the resident informed it on 8 November 2022 that he had mental health, depression, OCD and ASD traits.
During a visit by the landlord on the estate on 30 March 2023, the resident said that he reported pet fouling, noise nuisance, and ASB issues with his neighbours.
On 27 April 2023 the resident reported to the landlord and the Police that someone had stolen his clothes horse. The landlord informed him on the same day that it could not investigate because of a lack of evidence. The resident later informed the landlord that the Police closed his case without taking action because of the lack of evidence. The resident said he felt that could be the victim of a hate crime.
In May 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the actions it was taking in dealing with the pet fouling, the hate crime and criminal activities on the estate. During the same period, partnership agencies raised concerns with the landlord about the resident’s threatening conduct towards his neighbours, who had reported their concerns to them.
On 1 June 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident after discussing his ASB reports with him. It said that the resident did not want to make a formal complaint. It also said that the resident acknowledged he had not reported all the ASB he experienced to the landlord. It reiterated that it had investigated his report of a theft but could not take actions because of a lack of evidence. It discouraged the resident in “taking matter into his own hand” after he admitted to intimidating a neighbour.
The landlord received a report that the resident had made threats towards another resident on 26 July 2023 and asked to discuss the incident with him. The resident said he made a formal complaint to the landlord in July 2023 about its handling of his ASB reports but the landlord did not investigate it.
On 21 August 2023 the resident reported an incident with his neighbours, during which he said he was physically attacked, racially abused and had to defend himself. The landlord spoke to his neighbours and witnesses but could not corroborate the resident’s version of the events. It informed the resident’s caseworker that it was meeting with the police to discuss the reports of criminality on the estate.
The landlord informed the resident’s caseworker on 25 October 2023, that it would not consider the resident for a management move and explained its reasons. The resident asked for the landlord to confirm its decision in writing, which it provided on 12 January 2024.
Between April 2023 and December 2023, the landlord offered, and sign posted the resident for support. In December 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident about incidents of him shouting at his neighbour when her baby was crying.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 13 March 2024, about its handling of his ASB reports and his complaint. He sought for the landlord to monitor and manage the ASB on the estate and move him to a more suitable property. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on the same day.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 28 March 2024, and said:
1. In May 2023 and August 2023, it discussed with the resident his options of making a complaint but on both occasions, he declined. It had no record of the resident logging a complaint prior to March 2024. It did not uphold this element of the complaint.
2. The resident had not informed the landlord of his health issues when asked and did not engage with the support referral it made for him in April 2023 and May 2023. It encouraged the resident to discuss his health and wellbeing with it.
3. The resident had said he did not want to be rehoused into one of its properties and an external support agency was supporting him in applying for housing with other providers. It would, however, be happy to discuss his housing needs with him.
4. The resident had not made contact since 2023. Its last record of a contact on its housing management system was when in October 2023, his caseworker informed it that they were no longer supporting him.
5. It tried to contact the resident on 20 March 2024, to discuss the ASB issues he mentioned in his formal complaint, but he was not available. It would call the resident on 11 April 2024 to discuss the matters.
The resident escalated his complaint on 17 May 2024, because he remained dissatisfied with the landlord handling of his ASB reports and how it communicated with him on the matter. The landlord acknowledged his complaint 4 days later.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 14 June 2024, and said:
1. It had limited reports of ASB and criminal activities on the housing estate. The resident recognised that he had not reported all the incidents to the landlord, which made it difficult to investigate the matters. Nevertheless, it recognised that it could have done more in engaging with the resident on the issues by effectively communicating with him and understanding the problems sooner. It apologised to the resident.
2. It reiterated its findings at stage 1 that although it discussed making a formal complaint with the resident, he had refused.
3. After discussing rehousing options with the resident, it agreed to send him information on ways to end his tenancy and planned further discussions with him about the implications of ending his tenancy. It also contacted another service to support the resident in raising a bond for a privately rented property and would update the resident once it knew more.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint process

In July 2024 the landlord supported the resident with seeking a privately rented property and provided a reference to him. It also advised the resident on how to end his tenancy and in September 2024, it informed him of its intention of regaining possession of the property. On 18 August 2025 the landlord regained possession of the property through the courts.
The resident informed us that he was staying in temporary accommodation and receiving support to secure a property. He said the landlord did not address the racial abuse from his neighbours and blamed him for the ASB. He described how the situation impacted on his mental health and at times he felt suicidal. He explained that as a resolution to his complaint he was seeking an apology, acknowledgement of the landlord’s failings and compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to him.

Jurisdiction

The Scheme governs what we can and cannot consider, which is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. When a resident brings a complaint to this service, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint. The Scheme notes we may not consider complaints which, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of his request to move. He explained that he did not feel the band he was allocated reflected his circumstances such as his health needs and his needs to move out of the area. He said that he did not wish to remain a tenant of the landlord. He explained that he stopped bidding for properties because of how difficult the bidding system was and the number of people bidding for each property available.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his housing application is outside our jurisdiction. This is because The Local Government Social Care Ombudsman has jurisdiction over complaints about housing applications for local authority social landlords.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said that he raised a formal complaint with the landlord in January 2022, but it failed to investigate it. We may not consider events which were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising. In this case, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord in March 2024. Therefore, this investigation will focus on events from March 2023 onwards.

The resident’s reports of ASB

We understand that the landlord is not directly responsible for ASB. However, it has a duty, under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to investigate and respond to ASB reported by its residents with a victim centred approach.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will adopt a victim centred approach when managing ASB. It says it will investigate reports of intimidation, threats, pets fouling, hate crime or abuse under this policy. It says it will also agree the method and frequency of contacts with the resident for the duration of the investigation. It adds that it will work in partnership with other agencies such as the police and support providers. As part of its investigation, when suitable, it would offer mediation, issue warnings of tenancy breaches or refer residents for support. It says that it will inform the resident of it decision to close their ASB case and explain its reasons for doing so.
The resident said that in March 2023, he spoke to one of the landlord’s staff on their visit to the estate and informed them that there were issues with ASB on the estate. He said that he reported noise nuisance, fly tipping and pet fouling. We did not see evidence that the landlord followed up on the resident’s report. This was unreasonable by the landlord and not in keeping with its ASB policy to investigate such matters.
In April 2023 the resident reported the theft of his clothes horse. The landlord discussed the matter with him and explained that without evidence it could not take actions. This was reasonable by the landlord. It considered what happened and explained to the resident its reasons for not taking further actions. While this was in keeping with its ASB policy, the resident also said he felt that he could be the victim of a hate crime. The landlord did not show that it discussed this with him. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to gain a better understanding of the resident’s experience and consider whether it should investigate further. Its failings to fully investigate his reports was unreasonable and not in keeping with its ASB policy.
In August 2023 the resident reported that his neighbours had assaulted and racially abused him. Through the support of his case worker, the resident provided a detailed account of the incident to the landlord. The landlord investigated the matters, spoke to other residents on the estate, some of whom had witnessed the incident. While none of the witnesses could confirm they heard racial abuse towards the resident, 2 witnesses said that they saw the resident attacking another man with a “snooker cue”. The landlord said it was unable to discuss the matter with the neighbours involved in the incident.
We understand that the resident said the witnesses did not see the start of the incident and he maintained that he was defending himself. Our role is not to determine whether ASB occurred or who was the perpetrator, our role is to consider how the landlord responded to his ASB reports. In this case, the landlord investigated the matter, reviewed the evidence and shared its findings with the resident and his case worker. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord in keepings with its ASB policy.
We acknowledge that the resident felt discriminated against because of his race and the landlord failed to investigate the matter. This understandably caused him distress. However, we did not see evidence that in August 2023, the landlord failed to investigate his reports of racial abuse. The evidence shows that it discussed this with the witnesses but could not confirm that racial abuse occurred and take further actions. It shared its findings with the resident and his caseworker. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord in keepings with its ASB policy.
However, the landlord said that it would discuss the issues reported by the resident with the police in September 2023. While this was reasonable by the landlord, it did not show that it followed up at the time or updated the resident on the outcome. Instead, while investigating the resident’s complaint in August 2024, the landlord reached out to the police about the incident. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord had no information on its housing management system about speaking to the police about the ASB in August 2023. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to liaise with the police sooner. We did not see evidence that the delay in speaking to the police impacted on the resident’s overall outcome.
We recognise the landlord explained to the resident’s caseworker in August 2023, that the witnesses did not support the resident’s version of what happened. However, it did not show that in August 2023, it agreed a method and frequency of contacts to update the resident. Additionally, it did not show that it informed the resident it had closed the ASB case or its reasons for closing it. This was unreasonable by the landlord. Its failing to do this was not in keeping with its ASB policy.
The evidence shows that between May 2023 and July 2023, the landlord contacted the resident about his conduct towards other residents after receiving complaints about him. We understand that the resident felt blamed for the ASB. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to discuss the ASB reports it received with the resident and warn him about his conduct when appropriate to do so. This was in keeping with the landlord’s ASB policy.
We understand that following the incident in August 2023, the resident moved out of his property and repeatedly informed the landlord he did not wish to return. From August 2023, the resident’s caseworker supported him in seeking alternative accommodation. In October 2023, the landlord confirmed to the caseworker that it would not consider the resident for a management move and explained why. It is unclear when or whether the resident requested a management move from the landlord. While it was reasonable for the landlord to make its position clear to the resident, it took another 10 weeks for it to confirm its decision in writing, as requested by the resident. This was unreasonable and caused inconvenience to the resident who had to repeat his request to the landlord.
While the resident had not lived at his property since August 2023, he remained a tenant of the landlord until August 2025. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to discuss his concerns and ASB reports with him. We recognise that between October 2023 and March 2024, the landlord had little direct contact with the resident. The resident acknowledged to the landlord in June 2023 and May 2024, that he had not reported all the ASB he experienced. In its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord scheduled a call with the resident to discuss his ASB concerns. This was reasonable by the landlord and in keeping with its ASB policy.
However, the resident said when he escalated his complaint that the landlord had not contacted him as agreed in April 2024. The landlord disputed this and provided evidence that it contacted the resident on 11 April 2024, but he did not answer. We understand that the resident disputed this and said he did not receive the call.
We are an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. Where there are conflicting accounts, and independent evidence cannot verify what occurred, we cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to put right this failure. In this case, we saw evidence that the landlord contacted the resident as agreed, however, we recognise that we cannot determine whether the resident received the call or not. Nevertheless, after reviewing the evidence of the case, we cannot find service failure by the landlord in not contacting the resident as agreed.
The resident raised ASB issues as part of his stage 1 complaint. We understand that in April 2024, the landlord said it called the resident about his ASB reports, but he did not answer. However, it did not show that prior to June 2024, it had followed up and made further attempts to contact the resident about his ASB reports. Additionally, in March 2024, the resident raised historical issues of pets fouling and fly tipping on the estate, but the landlord did not show that it responded to him on these matters. This was unreasonable by the landlord. It would have been reasonable for it to promptly and fully investigate the resident’s ASB reports or explained to him why it would not.
We understand that the resident felt the landlord did not consider his mental health and wellbeing. However, between April 2023 and July 2024, the landlord made several offers of support to the resident and signposted him for support. We understand that some of the referrals it made were unsuccessful, but this was out of its control. The landlord showed that it was sensitive to the resident’s vulnerabilities.
Overall, we determine there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We recognise that the landlord investigated some of the resident’s ASB reports such as the clothes horse theft and the incident in August 2023. It also demonstrated working in partnership with other agencies and signposting the resident for support. However, and from the landlord’s own admission, it could have done more to discuss what happened with the resident, especially the alleged racial element of the ASB. Although it investigated the incidents reported by the resident, it did not show it effectively communicated with him on the matters. In addition, the landlord did not show that it investigated the resident’s reports about pet fouling and fly tipping.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised to the resident about its handling of his ASB reports. It said that it could have done more to understand the issues faced by him. However, while it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise to the resident, this was not a proportionate remedy for the failings identified in this report. It did not acknowledge the inconvenience, distress, time and effort caused to the resident. After considering our remedies guidance, which is published on our website,we order the landlord to pay £200 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience and distress caused to him because of its failings.

The associated complaint

The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) outlines the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. It states that landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It explains that they must respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. It also states that if a landlord needs more time to respond, it must agree an extension with the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord’s Homes and Neighbourhoods’ Complaint Policy is in keeping with the Code.
The resident said that he raised a complaint in May 2023, but the landlord did not investigate it. The evidence shows that on 31 May 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and discussed making a complaint with him. It followed up with a letter, in which it confirmed that the resident declined making a formal complaint. This was reasonable by the landlord, it showed that it contacted the resident and discussed with him raising a formal complaint. Its actions were in keeping with its Homes and Neighbourhoods’ Complaint Policy and the Code.
The resident informed us that in July 2023, he made another formal complaint to the landlord, which it did not investigate. In its complaint responses, the landlord said that it discussed making a complaint with the resident in August 2023, but the resident declined. The landlord informed us that on 12 September 2023, it had another conversation with the resident about making a formal complaint, but he declined. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord in keeping with its Homes and Neighbourhoods’ Complaint Policy and the Code.
We understand that the resident maintained that he raised complaints with the landlord and it did not investigate them. We also understand that the landlord disputed this. We are an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. Where there are conflicting accounts, and independent evidence cannot verify what occurred, we cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to put right this failure. In this case, this service did not see evidence that prior to March 2024, the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord, and it failed to act on it. Without evidence we cannot determine that there was failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in March 2024. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on the same day and issued its stage 1 response on 28 March 2024. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord. Its responded to the resident’s complaint within its published timeframe and in keeping with the Code.
The resident escalated his stage 2 complaint on 17 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged his complaint within 2 working days and issued its stage 2 response 17 working days later. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, it acted in keeping with its Homes and Neighbourhoods’ Complaint Policy and the Code.
In summary, we understand the resident said the landlord failed to investigate some of the complaints he made. However, we did not see evidence that the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to complaints the resident made prior to March 2024. The landlord showed that since March 2024, it responded to the resident’s complaint in keeping with its obligations. Therefore, we determine there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
In accordance with paragraphs 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. Provide a written and detailed apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report in its handling of the ASB.
2. Pay £200 compensation directly to the resident to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused to him by its failings.