Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Leeds City Council (202347607)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347607

Leeds City Council

13 February 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about the communication with the Adult Social Care team.
    2. Housing application.
    3. Reports of repairs to the toilet and rear door.
    4. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), specifically noise nuisance.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The resident moved into a 1-bedroom, semi-detached bungalow on 25 January 2023.
  2. The resident told us that he has complex mental health conditions, including a brain injury that influences both his communication and his ability to receive communication. He suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which he said affects his responses to noise and disturbances. The landlord is aware the resident is particularly sensitive to noise.
  3. The resident has assistance from his daughter, who is his advocate. Any reference to “the resident” within this report relates to the resident and his daughter.
  4. In June 2023, the resident contacted adult social services to report a noise nuisance, specifically loud banging from his neighbour. The resident said he needed peace and quiet, and the noise impacted his well-being. The landlord visited the neighbour in July 2023. The neighbour denied deliberately making noise and said he had been completing DIY projects. The landlord offered to install noise monitoring equipment (NME) to capture the reported noise.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 31 July 2023 and said:
    1. The noise was debilitating to his mental health.
    2. He asked for the NME to be installed by an independent department as he did not trust that the ASB team would not tamper with the equipment.
    3. He was unhappy with the lack of support and contact the Adult Social Care team provided since he moved into the property.
    4. He was unhappy that his housing application could not be reinstated.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 1 of the complaints process on 31 August 2023 and said that the resident had been given a noise nuisance pack and asked to complete diary sheets. At this stage, it said it had no evidence to corroborate the reports. It had asked Environmental Health (EH) if they would install the NME. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint, saying the landlord had promised EH would install the NME and that it was deliberately withholding the equipment because he had not returned diary sheets.
  7. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 10 November 2023. The landlord said that:
    1. The resident refused to meet with a case officer regarding his ASB action.
    2. He refused to allow the officer to retrieve the completed diary sheets or take photographs of them.
    3. EH would not install equipment in a domestic case but confirmed that the resident’s probation officer had agreed to act as an independent witness to the installation and retrieval of the NME.
    4. It acknowledged that the resident had submitted diary sheets earlier that week.
  8. We contacted the resident in January 2025. He remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and how it handled his reports and asked us to investigate his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) sets out our jurisdiction to consider complaints. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. As part of the resident’s complaint, he raised concerns about:
    1. The communication with the Adult Social Care team.
    2. The handling of his housing application.
  3. Paragraph 41.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states we cannot consider complaints concerning local housing authorities in England that do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. The local authority manages Adult Social Care and the management of housing applications. Therefore, these complaints are not within our jurisdiction to consider. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) is best placed to consider these complaints. The evidence indicates that the resident has contacted the LGSCO regarding these matters.
  4. In his escalation request, the resident stated that his toilet was flushing by itself and that the back door was in disrepair. We have not investigated the repair complaint because the landlord must be given the opportunity to respond to it. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 11 January 2024 and there is no evidence that the resident escalated his complaint.
  5. Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. Therefore, this aspect of the complaint is outside of our jurisdiction to consider. If the resident remains unhappy with the outcome of the complaint after it has been through the landlord’s complaints procedure, he can contact us.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has previously raised concerns with us and the LGSCO regarding ASB and other issues. This report does not address matters we have investigated and determined in previous reports. It focuses on the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance from June 2023 to the landlord’s stage 2 response in November 2023.
  2. The resident reports that the noise disturbance has exacerbated his medical conditions. We recognise the distress this situation may have caused. However, a court would be better suited to address this issue, as it can establish liability. Our focus has not been on determining liability but rather on how the landlord considered his health concerns.

Legislation, policies and procedures

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code 2020 states that landlords should comply with the Equality Act 2010, and may need to adapt normal policies, procedures, or processes to accommodate an individual’s needs. Landlords shall have a reasonable adjustment policy in place to address this. The landlord has not provided a copy of its reasonable adjustments policy and we been unable to locate a copy on the landlord’s website.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy and procedures states that:
    1. It will work in partnership to safeguard vulnerable individuals using preventive and enforcement measures.
    2. Residents must complete ASB incident diaries and submit them within 20 working days, or the landlord will collect them.
    3. Case officers will identify vulnerabilities during initial visits to victims, witnesses, and accused individuals and offer support and advice regularly.
    4. Vulnerabilities will be reassessed throughout the investigation.

Assessment

  1. We recognise that this is a complex case involving a vulnerable resident with significant mental health needs. When the resident moved into the property, the landlord was aware of his complex health requirements and the history of similar reports from his previous tenancy. The landlord understands that the resident is especially sensitive to noise.
  2. Our Spotlight report on noise emphasises that landlords should maintain a clear policy for fostering good neighbour relationships, distinct from their policy on ASB. This ensures that minor issues between neighbours are not mistakenly regarded as serious complaints. If noise is misclassified, it is unfair to both the complainant and the individual being complained about.
  3. In July 2023, adult social services alerted the landlord about the noise nuisance the resident had reported. The landlord emailed the resident and confirmed that it would visit his neighbour to discuss the reports, specifically loud banging. The landlord demonstrated a proactive approach to tackling the issue at the earliest opportunity.
  4. The neighbour denied making intentional noise and stated that he was undertaking DIY projects on his property. The landlord reiterated the expectations set out in the tenancy agreement regarding not carrying out DIY during unsociable hours and reaffirmed that residents should be respectful of one another. The landlord’s approach was consistent with its ASB policy by employing informal, early intervention to prevent the situation from escalating.
  5. In an email on 5 July 2023 the landlord confirmed that it could install NME to record the reported noise. The resident was also asked to report incidents via the designated channels, in line with its policy.
  6. Our Spotlight report on noise recommends that landlords offer accessible and inclusive options for residents to report noise issues. Furthermore, the landlord’s ASB policy indicates that if a resident encounters difficulties completing diary sheets, alternative options, such as using Dictaphones, will be considered.
  7. While the landlord offered to collect the diary sheets or stated that the resident could photograph the logs and email them, it should have considered whether asking him to complete the diary sheets posed a barrier to his ability to provide evidence. The landlord was aware that the resident had communication difficulties. There is little evidence to indicate that it understood his individual needs or adjusted the method for submitting evidence. This was not in line with our Spotlight report, or the landlord’s ASB policy.
  8. In his complaint on 31 July 2023, the resident explained that the noise was debilitating, meaning he had spent nights away from the property due to the impact it was having on his mental health. The landlord did not acknowledge his concerns or respond to the effects of the noise in its complaint responses. It was not until 25 October 2023—4 months after the initial reports—that the landlord attempted to conduct a risk assessment. The landlord has not explained why there was a delay in assessing the potential risks after the initial reports were made. This was a departure from its ASB policy, which states that it will reassess vulnerabilities throughout the investigation.
  9. The reports of banging should have encouraged the landlord to inspect the properties. This aligns with our Spotlight report on noise, highlighting that landlords should respond by conducting property inspections as part of their investigation when made aware of an issue. The landlord missed the opportunity to explore beyond the limited evidence it had been provided and whether simple adjustments could have reduced the reported noise.
  10. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed it had interviewed the neighbour and a potential witness to the noise but had been unable to substantiate the reports. The landlord said it would re-interview the neighbour once diary sheets had been returned. The landlord relied heavily on the return of diary sheets, which again did not adequately consider the resident’s communication needs.
  11. On 7 September 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it was awaiting the EH team, distinct from the ASB team, to install the NME equipment. By 22 September 2023, the landlord confirmed that the EH team could not proceed with the installation. The landlord confirmed that an alternative arrangement would involve the resident’s probation office overseeing the installation of NME and retrieving the recordings. This illustrates the landlord’s commitment to finding a solution.
  12. The resident expressed concerns about whether the neighbour would be informed about the installation of the NME. The landlord confirmed that the neighbour would be notified that monitoring would occur, but they would not share specific details about when the NME would be installed. This approach was appropriate and aimed to reassure the resident of a fair process.
  13. Frustrated by the delays and feeling that the installation of the NME was unjustly delayed, the resident escalated his complaint regarding the ongoing noise nuisance. He decided to hire an independent company for the NME installation. In an email dated 9 November 2023, the landlord reiterated that its offer to install the NME and provide an independent mediator to oversee the process was still valid, which was a reasonable response.
  14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord outlined the difficulties it encountered in arranging a meeting with the resident to discuss the action plan and in acquiring copies of the diary sheets. It confirmed that the resident submitted diary sheets covering September 2023 to October 2023 in November 2023. Despite the landlord’s attempts to obtain the logs, it did not specify whether it had reviewed the submitted evidence or committed to providing an outcome for the resident after the review. This lack of clarity may have impacted the resident’s experience and could have contributed to a perception that the landlord was not adequately addressing the reports provided.
  15. In his communications with the landlord, the resident conveyed how the noise was impacting his mental health and causing him distress. Despite expressing these concerns, there is no evidence that more than one attempt was made to conduct a risk assessment or that any consideration was given to the additional support the resident might need. This is a departure from the landlord’s ASB policy, which emphasises the importance of reassessing risks during the investigation and working with others to tackle ASB issues.
  16. The case was closed in August 2024. The landlord’s decision not to take further action was based on the lack of clear evidence of a statutory noise nuisance. Without such evidence, the landlord is limited in the actions it can pursue. While this restricts the landlord’s options for formal action, exploring other potential resolutions to effectively address the issue, such as sending informal letters and assessing noise transference between properties, is important. There is no evidence that the landlord undertook these steps in this case.
  17. While there are positive aspects to the landlord’s management of this case, it relied too heavily on evidence provided through diary sheets and, when it did receive these sheets, failed to explain the outcomes of the evidence submitted. It could have done more to explore whether noise transference was an issue contributing to the noise. The landlord applied its ASB policy to noise complaints in this case. As detailed in our Spotlight report on noise, we recommend that the landlord consider developing a good neighbour management policy for cases where the noise reported does not qualify as ASB to make fair and consistent decisions regarding noise reports.
  18. The landlord did not adequately acknowledge the impact of even minor noise on the resident, who suffers from PTSD and mental health issues. It should have taken this into account when evaluating the noise reports. Consequently, we have identified maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, specifically noise nuisance.
  19. We have reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy alongside our remedies guidance. The policy states that if a resident has been adversely affected for a sustained period, compensation will be offered, including in instances of ASB. We have considered the adverse effect over the 5-month period investigated and taken into account the vulnerabilities of the resident, who was more susceptible to noise, and ordered the landlord to pay £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 41.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the communication with the Adult Social Care team was ruled outside of our jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 41.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application was ruled outside of our jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the toilet and rear door concerns was ruled outside of our jurisdiction.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, specifically noise nuisance.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the ASB, specifically noise nuisance.
    3. Contact the resident by phone or home visit to check the current position regarding the noise and whether he has any current concerns. Then, confirm in writing this discussion and any further action agreed, including any planned investigation, with a clear explanation of any decisions, and provide a copy of this letter to us.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to develop a good neighbour management policy for cases where the noise reported does not qualify as ASB to make fair and consistent decisions regarding noise reports.
  2. The landlord should advise us of its intention regarding the recommendation within 4 weeks.

 

 

 

 

 

Chat to us