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.

Leicester City Council (202203128)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203128

Leicester 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord under an agreement dated 12 April 2010. The landlord is a council. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor cottage flat that contains 2 flats only with a communal facility front and back.
  2. Between January 2022 to October 2022 the resident reported antisocial behaviour including noise nuisance, her neighbour disposing of rubbish outside of her property and an incident that happened on 20 April 2022 outside of the resident’s property of verbal abuse by the neighbour’s family towards the resident and her daughter.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 18 November 2022 advising of noise from loud music that was vibrating through her bedroom wall. She asked the landlord to advise her neighbour to not disturb her. The resident contacted us on 9 December 2022 as she had expected the landlord to respond by 6 December 2022 as per our email to the landlord of 22 November 2022 but she had not had a response concerning her reports of antisocial behaviour.
  4. On 27 June 2024 we wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf for the landlord to raise a complaint regarding her report of antisocial behaviour post 2022. The complaint concerned the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from 2022 to April 2024. This included alleged noise nuisance resulting in sleep deprivation and the verbal incident that was reported to the Police in 2022.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 6 August 2024. It recorded incidents of noise nuisance and a verbal incident between 3 May 2022 to 17 May 2022. It’s noise team installed noise monitoring equipment that did not pick up anything. The case was kept open until 14 November 2022. It had offered the resident and the alleged perpetrator mediation services but this had been declined by both parties. Another incident was recorded on 16 May 2023. Its lead officer attempted several visits to the address and sent a letter to the neighbour. A further incident was recorded on 18 April 2024 of continuous noise from the neighbour’s property. It sent a letter to the neighbour and signposted the resident to the noise team. It was aware that the neighbour had since moved out from June 2024. It apologised for any inconvenience caused to the resident in raising the issues.
  6. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 12 August 2024 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response.  She said that she had engaged with the mediation service, but it was the neighbour who refused this. She reported that a neighbour known to the alleged perpetrator had started living at the property illegally 3 months prior when the neighbour started living in a care home, along with their girlfriend and a dog. She alleged that on confronting the person they were homeless and admitted to living illegally at the alleged perpetrator’s home.
  7. The landlord’s final complaint response was issued on 4 September 2024. It reiterated its stage 1 complaint response. However, the landlord said that it had made a mistake in its stage 1 complaint response as it had said the resident had not engaged in mediation when this was incorrect. It apologised for this error. It advised that it had followed the correct process in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response, and she referred her complaint to us on 14 October 2024. As a remedy the resident requested compensation.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. The resident has mentioned her reports to the local council’s noise team. The noise team works within the council’s statutory environmental protection function. It has a duty to investigate noise nuisance to see if there has been a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act. This function is not part of the landlord’s functions. If the resident is dissatisfied with the council’s response to noise nuisance, she may wish to raise a complaint to the council. She may wish to then refer this to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman who investigate complaints concerning council functions. This investigation has therefore focussed on the landlord’s specific responsibilities in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. The resident referred to the impact of the landlord’s actions regarding the antisocial behaviour on her health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on specifically how the resident’s health may have been affected by any errors made by the landlord. Claims of personal injury ultimately, are better suited for courts or liability insurers to decide. The Ombudsman can however consider the overall detriment, inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident due to a landlord’s failings as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.
  3. The local council has an antisocial behaviour unit that is an agency that is dedicated to tackling antisocial behaviour. This takes referrals from its landlord function. Referrals are made by a relevant manager and cases are investigated that could result in further action being taken. There is an expectation that an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement is in place but there has been a subsequent breach. As this does not form part of the landlord function, the investigation focusses on the landlord’s role.
  4. The resident has referred to her reports of antisocial behaviour going on for years. We determined her previous complaint concerning antisocial behaviour on 12 January 2022 (case reference 202103127) where we found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the issues. The period considered for this investigation is from January 2022 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 4 September 2024.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

  1. The resident had reported incidents of antisocial behaviour including noise nuisance from a TV that were considered in our previous investigation determined 12 January 2022. Following the resident’s continued reports of antisocial behaviour the landlord referred the case to its Crime and Antisocial Behaviour Unit (CrASBU) on 24 January 2022. The CrASBU’s risk assessment completed on 27 January 2022 classified the case as medium risk. The CrASBU did not believe that the case warranted a referral at that time as the evidence provided by noise monitoring recordings did not support the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It suggested that the landlord offered support to the resident as it did not note that the resident had been offered support previously and to follow up on attempts between 19 and 22 January 2022 to offer mediation.
  2. In the landlord’s emails of 28 January 2022, it agreed to follow up on the suggested actions. It is not known why the landlord had not previously made a referral for support which would have been appropriate given that the landlord felt the need to make a referral to the CrASBU for the resident’s ongoing reports. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy also says that it will help residents deal with antisocial behaviour offering several solutions and preventative measures to help. Its procedure says that it will provide support and signposting.
  3. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy and procedure says that it will respond within 3 working days to all antisocial behaviour cases. Once parties are interviewed and an action plan agreed, action will be taken swiftly where appropriate. The tools described include warning letters, mediation, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) and referral to other agencies. The landlord may consider the use of enforcement action such as injunction, possession proceedings and demotion orders. The landlord will provide support to residents being harassed and provide information and work in partnership with other agencies.
  4. The landlord’s records show that it requested advice regarding a support referral also on 28 January 2022. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether this related to it getting advice from the CrASBU or whether this was to make a referral for support for the resident. This indicated issues with the landlord’s record keeping. According to the landlord’s records it was the Police that made a referral to a victim support agency following an incident the resident reported on 20 April 2022. This indicated that the landlord may not have made a referral itself for the resident to receive some support or to communicate this to the resident as its records were unclear.
  5. According to the landlord’s email to the CrASBU of 1 February 2022, it had contacted the alleged perpetrator who had agreed to a good neighbour agreement rather than to mediation that it had offered. The landlord requested a clinic with the CrASBU which took place on 7 February 2022 to discuss the case further. The meeting record set out the issues that took place with the resident and her neighbour which dated back to 2016. The CrASBU advised that mediation would be the best option, and it would make a mediation referral to its new provider due to go live on 1 March 2022. The CrASBU advised in its email of 28 February 2022 to the landlord that it should liaise with the allocated worker directly.
  6. Between 20 April 2022 to 26 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord describing an incident that occurred on 20 April 2022 between the neighbour’s family and her daughter, and she gave a crime reference number. She asked for the landlord’s help. The landlord responded the following day which was appropriate. However, it said that its housing officer would phone the resident “in due course”. This was inappropriate as the resident would not know when to expect a phone call. There was also no evidence of an appropriate risk assessment taking place at that time as per the landlord’s policy and procedure.
  7. The resident reported that the landlord had phoned the resident within 1 working day on 21 April 2022 and met with her on 22 April 2022 which was in line with its policy for incidents such as hate crime. This was reasonable, though as mentioned it would have been appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident of its service standards earlier. The landlord subsequently wrote to the resident on 3 May 2022 following her antisocial behaviour reports to say that it had successfully resolved her concerns on the phone and that a meeting was scheduled 5 May 2022. The resident said in her response the same date that the matter was not resolved and that the meeting was to hear how the landlord was going to deal with the reported antisocial behaviour.
  8. The resident made subsequent reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance from 12 May 2022 to 16 May 2022 to the landlord. The reports included the incident that the resident had previously reported, along with reports of the neighbour leaving rubbish outside of her property. She was concerned that this would attract rats and flies. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what action it took regarding the resident’s reports at this time and there is no record of communication as would be expected in line with the antisocial behaviour policy of the landlord’s response until 19 May 2022. The landlord appropriately apologised for its delay in responding. It advised the resident that it was referring her case to the CrASBU.
  9. The landlord referred the case to the CrASBU on 23 May 2022. The CrASBU noted on 25 May 2022 that the landlord had offered mediation to the resident, but the alleged perpetrator had refused to engage with this. It said that following racially aggravated comments when the Police interviewed both parties, that the landlord had provided diary sheets to both the resident and her neighbour.
  10. The landlord’s records are insufficiently robust as it is not clear when it provided the diary sheets and when it contacted the resident’s neighbour. The antisocial behaviour unit note from 26 May 2022 said that the resident had not completed the diary sheets as she felt no one was listening to her. It was clear from the antisocial behaviour unit’s notes that the landlord had also arranged a meeting with the Police at some point. These were all reasonable actions to take but the landlord’s records do not evidence these actions or when they happened which was inappropriate. The landlord’s records show that it was following an incremental approach, but no record has been seen that the landlord communicated with the resident about this approach.
  11. The incremental approach described in its policy is that it will provide advice by letter or verbally regarding antisocial behaviour incidents that cause concern. It will then issue a warning letter to highlight a person’s ongoing or more serious antisocial behaviour before moving to an Acceptable Behaviour Contract. According to a joint letter from the antisocial behaviour unit and the Police to the alleged perpetrator of 20 June 2022, the landlord had already sent an advice letter on 19 January 2022 and a warning letter to the alleged perpetrator dated 28 April 2022. These actions were in line with the landlord’s policy but are not appropriately recorded in the landlord’s records.
  12. As set out in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025), without good knowledge and information management, a landlord cannot adequately and proactively monitor its actions taken on antisocial behaviour issues. The landlord should review its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management if it has not already done so to improve its record keeping practices.
  13. From this point the CrASBU took on the case management of the resident’s antisocial behaviour case and her reports of noise nuisance. The council’s noise team also became involved in investigating whether a statutory noise nuisance had occurred. The CrASBU’s actions covered the period from 25 May 2022 to June 2024 when the alleged perpetrator moved out of the property. Whilst the CrASBU was managing the case, the resident still emailed the landlord on several occasions and received no response which was not appropriate. We have not seen any records that the landlord responded to her emails of 15 July 2022, 6 December 2022 where she also reported a repair issue, 13 February 2023, 14 May 2023 and 25 May 2023 when the resident said that no one had contacted her. Whilst the CrASBU visited the resident between 22 and 25 May 2023, the landlord’s lack of communication was inappropriate.
  14. The only other involvement of the landlord was to complete a check with the alleged perpetrator on 18 April 2024 when the resident had reported noise from the property. The resident advised us that someone was living in the property rent free and that the landlord had not properly investigated this. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 4 September 2024 states that it had spoken to the alleged perpetrator who had advised that someone was checking on the property as he was no longer at the address.
  15. Whilst the landlord’s records evidence it took some action prior to referring the case to its CrASBU, the Ombudsman considers that the identified failings (including the lack of appropriate record keeping and communication with the resident) amount to maladministration for which orders have been made. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, we have ordered £450 in compensation comprising £250 in respect of the delays in the landlord answering the resident’s queries, its lack of appropriate records and communication with the resident. We have awarded £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.
  16. We have also recommended that the landlord reviews its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management if it has not already done so to improve its record keeping practices.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident contacted us on 18 November 2022 with a copy of a complaint that she had made to the landlord concerning noise nuisance from her neighbour and antisocial behaviour. On 9 December 2022, the resident wrote to us to say that her landlord had not responded to this complaint. The landlord subsequently sent us a final complaint response that was dated 14 June 2022. This was identical to their previous final complaint response from 2021 that we considered in our investigation determined on 12 January 2022.
  2. The resident contacted us again on 14 March 2023 when she said that the landlord had sent a copy of an old complaint response. This had no date on it. We wrote to the landlord again on 15 March 2023 to request that it responded to the resident’s complaint. The landlord sent a further complaint response with no date on it to us on 20 November 2023 which the landlord said was from 8 June 2022. This was again the same response as before. We had to chase the landlord again for it to progress the resident’s complaint on 27 June 2024 and on 16 July 2024. The landlord advised the resident on 26 July 2024 that it needed an extension of 5 working days to provide its response.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 August 2024. This was an unreasonable delay, and it was considerably outside of the landlord’s policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) timescales. It had taken the landlord over a year and a half to properly respond. The fact that the landlord had sent us copies of its previous complaint responses that were considered by us in our previous determination evidenced poor record keeping practices as mentioned above.
  4. The Code requires a landlord to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of an acknowledgement and at stage 2 within 20 working days of an acknowledgement. An acknowledge is required within 5 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy requires a response at stage 1 within 10 working days of the complaint being made and within 20 working days of the complaint being made. The landlord’s acknowledgement of 27 June 2024 said it would respond within 15 working days which was not in accordance with its policy and the Code.
  5. The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 12 August 2024. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 4 September 2024. This was within its policy timescales of 17 working days from the complaint being made. Though, when considered with the long delay in the complaint progressing to the landlord’s final complaint response, it was by this time 455 days (1 year and 9 months) from the complaint being made originally on 18 November 2022. This delay caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident who needed to contact us to help her to progress her complaint through the landlord’s internal complaints process. It would likely have meant that the resident felt that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
  6. The landlord recognised from the resident’s escalation request that it had made an error in its stage 1 complaint response as it said that both the resident and the alleged perpetrator had not engaged in the mediation attempts. The evidence provided showed that the resident had engaged in the mediation, but it was the alleged perpetrator that refused to engage. It appropriately apologised for this error in its final complaint response of 12 August 2024. The landlord did not consider that there were any failings in the way that it had handled the resident’s complaint other than the error it made at stage 1. It also failed to consider the delays in progressing the resident’s complaint through its complaints process which would have been appropriate. It also did not consider any compensation under its policy when it was aware of the delays as we had informed the landlord of its poor complaint handling.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to consider compensation for distress, inconvenience or loss resulting from the landlord’s actions. It would have been appropriate therefore for the landlord to consider compensation under the circumstances.
  8. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint for which orders have been made.
  9. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, we have ordered £200 in compensation. This comprises £100 in respect of the delays in the landlord progressing the resident’s complaint through its internal complaints process and £100 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.
  10. We have also ordered the landlord to complete a senior management review of the resident’s case and its complaint handling to prevent similar errors and delays from occurring.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders 

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to send a written apology to the resident from a senior leader. It must also send a copy of this to us within the same timescale.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £650 in compensation comprising:
    1. £450 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (comprising £250 in respect of the inappropriate delays poor record keeping and communication with the resident, and £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.
    2. £200 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint (comprising £100 in respect of the delays in progressing the complaint and £100 in respect of the distress, inconvenience time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings).
  3. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete a senior management review of the resident’s case paying particular attention to its complaint handling to prevent similar errors and delays from occurring. It must send a copy of its report to the resident and to us within this timescale.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management based upon the recommendations set out in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) to improve its record keeping practices.