Leeds City Council (202336214)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336214

Leeds City Council

30 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s management of:
   1. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   2. the resident’s requests for tenancy and rehousing support due to his additional needs.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a secure tenant and occupies a 1 bedroom ground floor flat. He has additional needs and the landlord’s records reflect this.
3. The resident has been registered for a housing transfer since 2019. He has Band A medical priority and requires a bungalow or ground floor flat.
4. The resident made at least 18 reports of ASB to his landlord, the police and the Anti-Social Behaviour Team (LASBT) between May 2020 and June 2022. He complained about noise nuisance, threats, littering, drug use and dealing, which he said were perpetrated by neighbours at 5 properties. The resident made no new reports of ASB between June 2022 and April 2023.
5. The resident raised stage 1 complaints on 13 September 2021 and 22 December 2022, which he did not escalate to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process.
6. The resident raised a new stage 1 complaint on 7 April 2023. He said:
   1. his neighbour had been drug dealing and threatening him for 5 years and should be evicted.
   2. his Housing Officer had not responded to his attempts to contact her.
   3. he disagreed with the landlord’s recent decision to close his tenancy support case. He needed help to bid for properties and specialist mental health support. He said the landlord’s failure to provide support was discriminatory.
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 April 2023. It said:
   1. it had spoken to the police and there was no evidence of ASB. There were counter allegations of ASB against the resident. He should complete a noise nuisance diary for 2 weeks and return it to the ASB Triage team.
   2. his housing officer had been absent from work unexpectedly. If the resident wished to speak to someone else, he could contact the team. It provided a contact phone number and email address.
   3. its tenancy support team had closed his case because auto-bidding had been set up for the resident for his re-housing application. The support team could not provide specialist mental health support, and he should contact his GP. It provided details of an alternative support service which he could contact.
   4. he had been awarded “Direct Let” status and would be considered for properties offered through the direct let system. It confirmed that his application had been updated to reflect his need for a bungalow and confirmed his 1st choice area for rehousing.
8. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 3 May 2023. He said:
   1. he had email evidence that a previous housing officer was friends with the neighbour who was causing ASB and so nothing had been done about the ASB when he reported it.
   2. his additional needs meant he needed reasonable adjustments. These included meetings in-person, text message reminders of appointments, regular support sessions and access to the local housing office which had closed during the coronavirus pandemic. The landlord should also consider his complaints which predated the 1 year time limit in its complaints policy.
   3. the landlord was not responding to his attempts to contact it.
9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 May 2023. It said:
   1. it could not investigate the allegation about the staff member because they had left employment over 1 year before the resident’s complaint. The resident had not completed nuisance diaries and there was no corroborating evidence of ASB. It had met in-person with him on 10 February 2023, along with the Leeds Anti-Social Behaviour Team (LASBT). 
   2. it provided the pertinent dates for the stages of its complaints policy. The housing office had not re-opened to the public due to lack of demand. Residents could attend an alternative office for face to face enquiries. It had placed alerts on its systems to record the resident’s preference for email and text communication.
   3. it had arranged in-person meetings with the resident at his home on 27 January 2023 and 2 March 2023. The resident had not attended. It had arranged a new meeting for 19 May 2023. The resident’s previous support officer would not speak with him on the telephone, due to verbal abuse. The tenancy support team was unable to provide further assistance at that time. It could not provide specialist mental health support, and the resident should contact his GP. It had contacted Adult Social Care and asked it to visit the resident.
   4. his housing application included a recommendation for a bungalow or ground floor flat for medical reasons. The resident had been awarded band A priority on 1 November 2022 and Direct Let status on 6 December 2022.
10. The resident contacted this Service on 20 December 2023. The outcomes he sought were for the landlord to:
    1. implement measures to monitor and manage antisocial behaviour effectively.
    2. arrange a managed move to a more suitable property away from gang crime and antisocial behaviour.
    3. offer appropriate support for him from its tenancy support team as a reasonable adjustment.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

11. The resident has said he feels the landlord has discriminated against him because of his disability. It is acknowledged this is a serious allegation. Though the Ombudsman is unable to reach legal findings, we can consider the landlord’s handling of his vulnerabilities and its response to his concerns. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue this further. 
12. Although it is noted that there is a long history of ASB and noise reports by the resident, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from June 2022 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. The resident’s prior reports of ASB have been noted to provide background context to his complaint and have only been considered in relation to the landlord’s handling of his further reports.
13. The resident has advised that his continued residence at the current property is causing detriment to his wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding the impact these matters are having on his health, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, the impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury, or damage to health are more appropriately addressed via the courts or insurance claim.

The landlord’s management of the resident’s reports of ASB

14. The tenancy agreement provides examples of actions and behaviours which the landlord considers to be ASB. The list includes noise nuisance, drug use or supply, and dumping rubbish.
15. The tenant handbook states that residents should report instances of ASB to their Housing Officer. If there is a neighbour dispute, the parties will be encouraged to try mediation. More serious ASB is managed by the Leeds Anti-Social Behaviour Team (LASBT), which is a multi-agency team.
16. The landlord’s ASB Policy states that it will investigate and attempt to resolve the causes of low level ASB problems reported by its tenants at the earliest opportunity. In the event of more complex ASB requiring the involvement of LASBT, the policy states that a case officer would conduct a thorough and impartial investigation. It lists a range of evidential sources which it may use in its investigation. This includes noise and nuisance diaries, personal observations during visits, noise monitoring equipment, visits to neighbours and house to house enquiries.
17. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment. The Ombudsman does not have the power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Act; Only the courts can make that decision. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties under the Act. Where on notice, it must consider when making decisions and providing a service whether its decision making / actions could place the person at a particular disadvantage due to their vulnerabilities. The landlord is also required to consider appropriate reasonable adjustments.
18. Generally, landlords should risk assess and ensure that early steps are taken to support and safeguard vulnerable residents. Following investigation, landlords should create an action plan and share this with the complainant. Mediation between neighbours should be considered at an early stage. This Service expects to see regular communication with the complainant and alleged perpetrator, monitoring of the situation, completion and updating of risk assessments and action plans and good record-keeping.
19. The resident made regular complaints of ASB relating to 5 properties in the vicinity of his home between April 2020 and July 2022. There is evidence that the landlord successfully took tenancy enforcement action against 1 neighbour in May 2021, because it had evidence of a criminal offence. It used proportionate and appropriate means available to it to address the neighbour’s activity when it had sufficient evidence to do so.
20. The landlord responded to further reports from the resident of ASB in 2021 and 2022. It closed the reports due to lack of evidence. There is no evidence it offered mediation between the parties or created an action plan. The landlord therefore did not act in accordance with its ASB policy or with good practice.
21. The resident completed and submitted noise diaries in April 2022. The evidence shows the landlord intended to send the diary to LASBT for advice. The evidence seen does not show what advice it received or what action, if any, it then planned to take. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of investigations and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
22. In addition, government statutory guidance in the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 states “It is therefore important to identify the effect that the reported anti-social behaviour is having on the victim(s), particularly if repeated incidents are having a cumulative effect on their mental or physical well-being. A continuous and organised risk assessment will help to identify cases that are causing, or could result in, serious harm to the victim, either as a one-off incident or as part of a targeted and persistent campaign of anti-social behaviour against the victim(s).”  The landlord was aware that the resident was a vulnerable person and that he had been reporting instances of ASB over a prolonged period. As such, it was unreasonable and not consistent with good practice that the landlord did not produce a risk assessment until June 2022.
23. The landlord appropriately started a new investigation into the resident’s reports on 23 June 2022. It interviewed 2 neighbours who were subjects of the allegations. Both denied the allegations. The landlord closed the case due to lack of corroborative evidence. For a landlord to take more formal action, it needs to have supporting evidence such as corroborated accounts. Its records state it did not receive reports from other residents. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to close the case because it had no evidential basis to warrant further action. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations regarding its response to his reports of noise nuisance.  
24. The resident did not make further reports of ASB until April 2023, when he complained again of drug dealing and noise nuisance. The landlord appropriately asked him to complete a noise diary so that it could begin an investigation. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered other means of gathering evidence, such as home visits during the day or out of hours, noise monitoring equipment, CCTV, or house to house enquiries. In the absence of such evidence, it can only be assumed that the landlord failed to meet its policy expectations.
25. There is no evidence that the landlord told the resident at any time about the availability of the community trigger process, despite his regular complaints of ASB. This was unreasonable, as the resident was not afforded the opportunity for an independent review of the actions of the agencies involved in investigating his reports.
26. The resident told the landlord that he experienced health conditions which heightened his sensitivity to noise. The resident reported a substantial decline in his mental health, sleeplessness, and acute distress because of ongoing incidents of ASB. The landlord did not adequately acknowledge the impact of even minor noise on the resident, who suffers from mental health issues. It should have taken this into account when evaluating the noise reports. It missed opportunities to demonstrate it understood his perspective or reassure him that it was investigating thoroughly.
27. Part 11 of the Equality Act created the ‘Public Sector Equality Duty’ which requires public bodies to have ‘due regard’ to equality and the elimination of any behaviours prohibited under the Act. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord carried out a Public Sector Duty Assessment and Proportionality Assessment. In not doing so, the landlord has failed to have regard to its duties under the Equality Act.
28. In summary, when communicating with the resident, the landlord failed to assure the resident that it was taking his concerns seriously. It did not carry out a risk assessment until June 2022. It did not consider the impact of the noise nuisance on the resident, given his additional needs. It did not have regard to its duties under the Equality Act. This was in breach of its statutory duty to consider possible reasonable adjustments. It did not offer mediation, and it did not advise him of the availability of the community trigger mechanism. Cumulatively therefore, there was maladministration in how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s management of the resident’s requests for tenancy and rehousing support due to his additional needs

29. The tenancy handbook states the landlord may make a referral to its housing support team where a resident feels the need for extra help in their tenancy.
30. The landlord has recently provided this Service with its Tenancy Support Policy, Procedure & Guidance 2024, which details the criteria for and remit of its tenancy support service. It states the purpose of the service is to assist tenants to sustain their tenancies, where there are vulnerability issues.
31. However, the policy document post-dates the internal complaints process in this case. This Service would expect information about the remit of its support service and any update to its service to have been made available to the resident. That the landlord did not provide the resident with such information meant it failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations. This compounded the resident’s frustration and distress at the landlord’s decision that it could not provide ongoing support.
32. The evidence shows the resident repeatedly requested tenancy support and help with bidding for a new home from 2020. The landlord responded that it had set up auto bidding and Direct Let status on his account for properties that would meet his assessed needs. This was a reasonable and pragmatic response from the landlord. It addressed the resident’s stated need of help with bidding, while utilising its resources effectively.
33. It is understandable that the resident feels frustrated at not being able to move to another property more quickly. However, the provision of a tenancy support officer would not deliver the outcome the resident was seeking, which was to expedite a move to a bungalow elsewhere. The resident was appropriately supported through the allocation of Direct Let status and the auto-bidding that the landlord had arranged for his housing application.
34. The resident requested that a support worker provide specialist mental health support, which the landlord reasonably told him it could not provide. It appropriately signposted him to his GP instead. It provided details of an external support service and offered to refer him directly, which was a reasonable intervention. Due to concerning messages about his deteriorating mental health, the landlord referred him to Adult Social Care for an assessment of his needs. This was an appropriate and proportionate response.
35. In conclusion, the landlord failed to provide the resident with a transparent framework in which decisions and complaints about its support service provision could be understood. It has not demonstrated that it undertook a proportionality assessment of its decision not to continue to offer support to the resident. However, the landlord’s actions to support the resident in respect of his re-housing application through the application of auto-bidding and direct let status were appropriate. On balance, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s management of the resident’s requests for tenancy and rehousing support.

Determination (decision)

36. There was maladministration in the landlord’s management of the resident’s reports of ASB.
37. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for rehousing and tenancy support.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

38. No later than 28 October 2025, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident compensation of £300, for his distress and time and trouble caused by the poor handling of his reports of ASB.
    3. undertake a Public Sector Duty Assessment and Proportionality Assessment, if it has not already done so.
    4. undertake a review as to whether the resident’s current circumstances merit the offer of tenancy support considering its 2024 policy.
    5. share with the resident its Tenancy Support Policy to facilitate his understanding of any decision the landlord may make in respect of its support service provision.
    6. provide evidence of compliance with this order.