Leeds City Council (202340815)

Decision
Case ID	202340815
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Leeds City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	19 February 2026

Background

At the time of the complaint, the resident was a secure tenant, but she is now a leaseholder of the same property. She reported noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB) regarding the property below in March 2022. She complained to the landlord about its handling of the reports in February 2023. She completed the landlord’s complaint’s process in October 2023 and remained unhappy with its response, and so she brought her complaint to the Service.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
We have found Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Noise nuisance (ASB)

The landlord did not maintain communication to support the resident following the reports of ASB and therefore failed to address the reports of ASB incidents correctly or in line with its published policy. As a result, the landlord’s actions caused avoidable uncertainty and distress to the resident.

The complaint

Although the landlord provided timely responses to the resident and its stage 1 response identified failings and made commitments to improve case management, these commitments were not implemented. The landlord failed to effectively manage the ongoing ASB issues and failed to provide a lasting and meaningful resolution.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay £850 directly to the resident, this sum includes the £200 it previously offered, for the distress and inconvenience, caused by the poor handling of the ASB reports. The landlord must pay £100 directly to the resident, this sum includes the £50 it previously offered, for the impact of the complaint handling failings. The landlord must provide evidence of these payments.	No later than 27 March 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

27 March 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay £850 directly to the resident, this sum includes the £200 it previously offered, for the distress and inconvenience, caused by the poor handling of the ASB reports.

The landlord must pay £100 directly to the resident, this sum includes the £50 it previously offered, for the impact of the complaint handling failings.

The landlord must provide evidence of these payments.

No later than

27 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 February 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that: She originally reported the matter on 31 March 2022, and the landlord told her that her Housing Officer would call her. She called again on 12 April 2022 to report extremely loud music but still not hear back from the Housing Officer. At the end of April 2022, she called the ASB team. This team told her to keep a noise diary. She did and sent her the diary back to the ASB team on 22 May 2022. In June 2022, the landlord told her that an ASB officer would contact her, but she did not hear anything, and the noise nuisance continued. In July 2022, she chased the landlord for support twice. In August, after further noise incidents, she called the landlord and it said it would send her a new noise diary to complete. The landlord was aware there was a postal strike at the time. She said that she did not receive this diary. She chased the landlord for an update in September, and it said it would deliver a noise diary to her by hand. At 6:30AM on 24 September 2022, she called the police to a domestic disturbance coming from the alleged perpetrator’s property. These disturbances continued periodically throughout October, but she did not report every incident to the police. But the police did attend a domestic disturbance in November 2022. Following the police attendance, the neighbour proceeded to play “extremely loud music from 8PM until 1:30AM.” She called the landlord’s Out of Hours team twice during this time “as it caused her distress” and she was “unable to sleep until 2:00AM.” This event disturbed her plans for the following day. On 20 November 2022, she requested a review of her complaint by the Community Trigger team. She completed and returned the form by 4 December, and the landlord told her that her it would process this review by “mid-January 2023”, but she has not yet heard from the team. The Housing Officer called her on the 23 November 2022 and told her that they “assumed the ASB had stopped” because she had not contacted the landlord’s Housing Office. She told the Housing Officer that she was in contact with the ASB team instead and she was still waiting for a new diary to be sent to her. During this conversation, she told the Housing Officer that she was going away on holiday for a month. She received the second noise diary in December, 4 days before her holiday. She said this “should have been delivered when she made the request for the diary in August.” She feels helpless in this situation, and she is going “back and forth” with the landlord and chasing the ASB team. This has “severely affected her mental health” and made her flat “no longer feel like a home.” Adding that she is close to a “nervous breakdown with all the stress this situation is causing.” Her holiday gave her some “respite” but since her return it has continued. When she spoke to her Housing Officer, they thought the matter was closed and was not continuing but they had spoken to the neighbour and the neighbour had said that they “didn’t realise the music was too loud.” She has voice memo recordings of how loud the noise gets. The Out of Hours team have been very helpful, but she will raise her complaint with the Ombudsman if the landlord fails to address the matter any longer.
3 February 2023	The landlord provided a complaint acknowledgement email and a response, and it said it would investigate the matter and provide her with a response by 23 February 2023.
15 February 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response, and it said it had provided the resident with a verbal response and summarised the details of this conversation. It said: Housing Officers are to diarise regular contact with complainants. It needs to undertake “more thorough investigations such as interviewing neighbours for corroborating evidence.” Following the review of the case, it acknowledged that its response to the ASB reports “hadn’t met the landlords service standards.” It explained to the resident that “staff shortages have had an impact on Housing Officer workloads” and it apologised for this.” The Housing Officer would contact the resident “fortnightly”, and it has logged a request to have “noise monitoring equipment installed.” The resident can raise “further concerns with how the landlord is managing the case.”
14 September 2023	The resident escalated her complaint and requested an update on the case.
19 September 2023	The resident emailed the landlord to add more information to her escalation request. She said: The Housing Officers were supposed to make “monthly” calls to her, and she agreed to report any additional incidents in between these calls where necessary. Each time the Housing Officer called she told them that the domestic disturbances (shouting, screaming and door slamming) were a regular occurrence but she has heard the loud music less frequently. The calls from the Housing Officer stopped in May 2023; despite raising this with the landlord in July 2023 and she had not heard from the landlord since. She reported a domestic disturbance at 2:00AM on 7 September 2023, but the landlord has not replied. She works from home and her job requires concentration and she is disturbed by the loud music. She is not sure if it is “understaffing or whether it’s because the landlord just doesn’t care” but she wants the complaint reviewed at stage 2.
21 September 2023	The landlord provided an escalation acknowledgement, and it said that a senior investigating officer would review her complaint and provide her with a response by 19 October 2023.
12 October 2023	The landlord provided its stage 2 response, and it said: It understood that the experience has been “frustrating” for the resident and it offered £200 in compensation to reflect the time and trouble the resident has experienced in pursuing the complaint. It said the records supported the resident’s complaint and while there were historic logs of contact, there was no evidence of recent contact between the Housing Office and the resident. The landlord had not kept to the commitments it made in its stage 1 response, and it had not maintained a good standard of service. The Out of Hours team did not share the resident’s reports with the correct team and so the teams involved had not been able to follow up on these reports. The Housing Office did not comply with the landlord’s policy, and the members of staff will receive “refresher training” to ensure they manage ASB reports effectively in the future. A team leader will review the resident’s case regularly, and it will investigate all further reported incidents. It will also provide a response or an outcome at the time of the investigation, in accordance with its published policy.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to this Service and she said: She would like the landlord to start the eviction process for this tenant because they are “not fulfilling their tenancy agreement.” For a “listening device” to be installed into her property to monitor the noise coming from the neighbours property. Copies of all her noise complaints and diaries to the landlord’s Housing Office and the ASB team for her records. To be given notice of all “actions and updates” moving forward. “An end to the antisocial behaviour.”

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	The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB and noise nuisance
Finding	Maladministration

Background

The resident has lived at the property for 17 years and she first reported noise nuisance from the property below in January 2022. The reports described loud music, and later, shouting and domestic disturbance. This Service has assessed the period between October 2022 and October 2023. Events outside this period are referenced for context only.
From the evidence seen, the alleged perpetrator is a leaseholder. The enforcement options available to the landlord in respect of a leaseholder differ from those available against a tenant. However, the landlord remains responsible for investigating reports of ASB and taking proportionate action in line with its published policies.

Our investigation

Having considered the information supplied to this investigation, it is important to note that it is not this Service’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it had received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account all of the circumstances of the case.
By 12 October 2022, the landlord was aware that the resident has been reporting persistent noise nuisance for several months. The reports included loud music and incidents requiring police attendance. The resident logged her formal complaint on 1 February 2023 regarding the landlords handling of the noise nuisance reports. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that it had not met its service standards. It committed to maintaining regular contact and progressing the case in line with its ASB procedures.
Following the stage 1 response, a Community Trigger review took place on 14 April 2023, and the process identified actions including the issuing of a warning letter, liaison with the local ASB team, updating casework and conducting a review within 3 months.
We have not seen evidence to suggest the landlord completed the 3 month review, nor evidence to show the landlord embedded the agreed actions, into its case management during the assessment period. Additionally, the landlord failed to effectively implement the Trigger review’s recommendation of noise recording equipment resulting in further uncertainty and avoidable delays.
The landlord had 2 formal opportunities within the assessment period to correct its handling of the case: its stage 1 response in February 2023 and the Community Trigger Review in April 2023. Both processes identified areas of improvement and set out clear remedial actions. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord did not effectively implement or monitor these actions. The repeated communication failures and the absence of a documented case review following these interventions indicate a sustained failure of case management, rather than isolated oversight.
In the circumstances and taking account of the repeated failure to implement agreed actions or sustain case review, we are satisfied that that the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports fell short of its policy and good practice. Therefore, this Service finds Maladministration, and the landlord must pay a further £650 for the avoidable distress these failings could not but have caused.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

At the time of these events, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code set out the Ombudsman’s expectations of good complaint handling practice. The resident made a formal complaint on 1 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged and responded at each stage of the complaint within its published timescales.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that its response to the resident’s reports of ASB had not met service standards. It made commitments to improve its case management. These commitments included regular contact and further investigation, and it also told the resident that it requested noise management equipment for to support its investigations.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 and told the landlord that the Housing Office had stopped its regular communication with her in May 2023. The landlord’s stage 2 findings confirmed that it could not find evidence of regular contact in 2023, despite its prior commitments.
At stage 2, the landlord accepted that it had not adhered to the commitments it made in its stage 1 response. It offered £250 in compensation, comprising £200 for service failings in responding to ASB reports and £50 for time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
Although the landlord complied with its published complaint timescales, the purpose of the complaints process is to identify service failings and secure an effective resolution. In this case, while service failings were identified at stage 1, the landlord did not ensure the remedial actions were implemented and sustained during the period this Service has assessed.
The failure to embed and monitor the actions it identified meant the landlords handling for the ASB reports did not deliver sustained improvement in service standards. These failings amount to Service failure in the handling of the complaint. In addition to the previous offer of compensation, the landlord should pay a further £50 to recognise the impact of these failings.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The case highlighted the importance effective ASB case management, not only by maintaining adequate records, but ensuring effective and periodic case review.

Communication

Whilst the complaint responses were issued in a timely manner, the landlord did not provide clear or consistent communication to the resident to effectively manage the ongoing ASB issues, which the resident reported as having promoted uncertainty.