Leicester City Council (202429843)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429843

Leicester City Council

3 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 19 February 2018. The property is a flat.
The resident raised a report concerning noise disturbances during April 2024. She informed the landlord that her neighbour above her flat was deliberately banging, shouting and screaming. She stated that the neighbour had told her they were doing it on purpose so she would move out of the building. In response to these reports the landlord carried out a visit, however it did not witness any noise nuisance.
Between April 2024 and June 2025 the resident continued to inform the landlord about the issues she was experiencing. Its community safety team and noise team were informed of the ongoing issues. During this time, she was placed on the waiting list to have noise monitoring equipment installed.
On 16 July 2024 an anti-social behaviour (ASB) advice letter was issued to the neighbour. The letter explained the landlord was investigating a report of noise nuisance. The landlord had also spoken with neighbours on all 3 floors who confirmed they could hear banging noises at night. They stated this was coming from outside of the building.
The community safety team explained to the resident that, for it to take further action, evidence of the noise would need to be provided.
The resident continued to make reports of ongoing ASB. During August 2024, following text exchanges between the resident and the neighbour, she made a report to the landlord about “abusive” messages. The landlord reviewed the evidence, spoke with both parties, and issued a warning letter to the neighbour.
The landlord had contacted local police officers to try and organise mediation. This was arranged for 30 August 2024, a joint visit was made with the landlord and police.
During September 2024 the noise monitoring equipment was installed. After reviewing the recording, the landlord did not find the noise to be statutory noise nuisance. It explained this to the resident. However, as the resident continued to make reports of noise nuisance, it placed her back on the waiting list to have the noise monitoring equipment re-installed.
On 21 October 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about ongoing issues with her neighbour. She stated there were 4 people living in a 1-bedroom property who had been making excessive noise for a while, and this was becoming unbearable. She had reported the issue to the community safety team and the noise team, however no action had been taken and the noise team no longer responded to her. She explained that she has bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression and insecurity.
The landlord provided a stage one response on 11 November 2024. It apologised for the issues which the resident had been experiencing and explained:
1. A noise complaint was referred to its noise and pollution control team in May 2024. Monitoring equipment was installed in September 2024, but recorded noise did not meet the statutory nuisance threshold, so no action was taken.
2. Following a further complaint, the case was reviewed, with the same outcome that there was not enough evidence. The resident was returned to the waiting list, with advice to install equipment in a living area if noise occurs during the day. A warning for unreasonable noise had been issued, and the case was under review with ongoing monitoring. It asked the resident to provide evidence of noise which fell outside of everyday household noise.
3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about her mental health and arranged an appointment for 29 October 2024, to see if any further support could be offered.
During November 2024 the landlord carried out visits with the resident and the neighbour. Both parties confirmed they would try mediation and the neighbour also agreed to put down carpet or rugs on the floor to help with the noise. The neighbour confirmed that he was bidding on properties so that he could move.
The resident informed the landlord that the ongoing noise nuisance was seriously impacting her mental health and causing her to self-harm as a coping mechanism. She asked it to consider alternative housing for her neighbours as 4 individuals living in a 1-bedroom flat was “impractical”.
The landlord met with the resident and suggested the use of earplugs and headphones to cope with the noise while it waited for the noise monitoring recorder to be installed. It also recommended she contact her GP and referred her to third party organisations for support.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 12 December 2024. This explained:
1. Its position as stated in its stage one response. It confirmed that a second noise monitoring equipment installation in the living room was scheduled for January 2025. It advised it could not act on general daytime noise from children.
2. Additional support was provided, including a referral to a support organisation and welfare visits from housing staff. During these visits, coping strategies such as the use of earplugs and headphones were discussed, however the resident later declined the use of earplugs and headphones. It confirmed the case remained open and was under review.
Between 15 and 22 January 2025 noise monitoring equipment was installed again. The landlord’s operative listened to this and found that the noise was deliberate and repetitive. A second warning letter was issued to the neighbour on 24 January 2025.
The resident continued to make reports concerning her neighbour’s noise. On 17 February 2025 the landlord visited her property and decided to provide the resident with a 2-night stay in a hotel for respite. It also raised a request to have her banding changed. This was approved in March 2024 and the resident was given a band 1 priority for rehousing.
In March 2025 the resident wrote to the local mayor concerning the ongoing issues. The mayor contacted the resident on 4 April 2025 and apologised for the impact the ongoing ASB was having on her mental health. The mayor explained they had been in communication with the landlord and community safety team regarding her concerns. They explained all the steps the landlord had taken to try and resolve the issue.
The resident was booked into temporary accommodation for 1 month during August 2025. She has since returned home and her neighbours have moved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

We understand the noise issues continued after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Events past this point have been noted within this report, as we are satisfied they relate to the resident’s initial complaint.
The resident had recently stated that she wanted to move as she was experiencing issues with “dodgy people” in the area. We have not considered these concerns within this investigation as they were not addressed within the landlord’s formal response and were not part of the initial complaint about noise nuisance from the neighbour.

Handling of noise nuisance.

In the period between April 2024 and July 2025 the resident made numerous reports about noise disturbances from her neighbour. This included screaming and banging during various times in the night. She also informed the landlord of nasty text exchanges between her and the neighbour. They were both informed to no longer message each other.
The landlord’s ASB policy states steps which the landlord may take to address ASB. These include to:
1. Interview the complainant, witnesses and alleged perpetrators.
2. Agree an action plan.
3. Keep the complainant regularly updated.
4. Refer for support and assistance from specialist agencies.
5. Use intervention tools, such as interviews, warning letters and acceptable behaviour agreements.
6. Carry out monitoring by a team leader on a monthly basis.
The landlord’s process when a report is made is to:
1. Conduct an in-person visit to assess for statutory nuisance.
2. If noise nuisance is witnessed, it will take action in line with its procedures, such as warning letters, or an abatement notice.
3. If noise nuisance is not witnessed but is ongoing, it will continue to monitor.
4. If the noise nuisance being reported is outside its monitoring service hours, It will put the resident on a waiting list to install a noise monitoring recorder. It will analyse this information, and if noise is witnessed it will follow the process above.
The landlord’s ASB incremental approach sets out what steps it will take regarding ASB. This states it will issue:
1. An advice letter which highlights the concerns raised.
2. Warning letters where there has been ongoing or more serious involvement in ASB.
3. An acceptable behaviour contract and it will support parties involved in stopping this behaviour.
Following the resident’s reports of ASB on 24 April 2024 the landlord carried out a risk assessment. This found the risk to be medium. It visited the property on 30 April 2024 but did not find sufficient evidence of harassment by the neighbour. The landlord contacted the resident on 14 May 2024 to follow up on her reports of noise nuisance, following this a noise referral was completed. The resident was put on the waiting list for a noise monitoring recorder.
The resident continued to experience ongoing noise nuisance from the neighbour. Following further reports, the landlord updated its risk assessment in July 2024. It also issued an advice letter on 16 July 2024 through its community safety team. This informed the neighbour it was investigating reports of excessive noise, including banging from residents in the property.
We understand that in order to carry out any action the landlord needs evidence of noise nuisance. However there was a missed opportunity here as the landlord could have issued this advice letter to the neighbour sooner. When the resident made the initial report of noise nuisance and continued to experience this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to start this process. In failing to do so, no real action was taken to resolve the matter within this initial 3-month period.
We understand the neighbour previously arranged to swap phone numbers with the resident. However, during August 2024, the resident reported “abusive” text exchanges from the neighbour. This was reported to the police. We see the landlord contacted the resident and neighbour and spoke to them about this. Following an investigation into the matter, it issued a warning letter to the neighbour. Subsequently, mediation was offered to both parties, this was arranged by the landlord and the police.
We find the landlord took reasonable steps in line with its antisocial behaviour policy by promptly investigating the resident’s reports of abusive texts, issuing a warning to the neighbour, and arranging mediation with the involvement of police. This demonstrated the landlord acted appropriately and took proportionate actions to resolve the matter.
We have reviewed the comments from the mediation and see the neighbour disputed the resident’s claims of noise nuisance, stating the noise was from his children playing. During this meeting the neighbour played a noise recording of the resident banging on the ceiling, which he said upset his children. He also confirmed that he was in the process of arranging a house swap and was waiting for this to get approved. The landlord confirmed it would chase this matter for him.
Mediation can be a useful early intervention tool to resolve disputes between neighbours, however, we understand in some cases it does not always resolve the matter. Where it cannot resolve the matter, we would expect the landlord to further explore other alternative methods to resolve a situation. In this case, the resident continued to experience noise nuisance after this meeting. We understand the landlord was waiting for the monitoring recorder to be installed in order to gather evidence to support the resident’s claims. We find this was an appropriate step to take and in line with its policies.
The noise monitoring recorder was installed between 12 and 20 September 2024. When listening to the device the landlord found the noise was not considered sufficient to be statutory noise nuisance. It informed the resident of its findings.
We understand this would have come as a disappointment to the resident. The landlord’s policy states that noise must be classified as a ‘statutory nuisance’ for it to take action, and sufficient evidence is needed to support this. We are satisfied the landlord followed its correct procedures when dealing with the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
We recognise there was a delay of 4 months before the noise monitoring equipment could be installed. However we understand this was due to limited resources and this was explained to the resident. We are satisfied that the landlord appropriately made a request for this machine in a reasonable time. Furthermore, during this period of waiting, the landlord attempted to resolve the matter through mediation and visits.
The resident continued to report noise nuisance after this date, saying it was impacting her health. In response she was put back on the waiting list to install the noise recording equipment again on 30 September 2024.
While waiting for the equipment to be installed again, the landlord carried out a number of steps. These included:
1. Asking the resident and neighbour if they would like to try mediation.
2. Carrying out visits and speaking with both parties.
3. Signposting the resident to third parties for support.
4. Suggesting temporary methods of coping with the noise while it waited for the noise machine to be reinstalled, such as ear plugs and headphones.
5. Discussing housing options with both the resident and neighbour.
6. Staying in constant communication regarding the matter with the resident.
7. Asking the neighbour to put carpet or rugs on their floor and confirming this had been done.
We find the landlord took a proactive approach in line with its ASB policy, using a range of tools and interventions to resolve the noise nuisance. Although we recognise the matter was still ongoing despite its efforts, we are satisfied it demonstrated it was trying to resolve the situation.
The noise monitoring recorder was re-installed between 15 January 2025 and 22 January 2025. At this point it was determined the noise was considered statutory noise and the neighbour was issued with a second warning letter.
We have reviewed the transcript of the noise monitoring recording and can see there were several noise reports noted nearly every day whilst it was installed. The operative’s notes confirmed the nuisance witnessed was very loud banging and often repetitive.
Based on this evidence, the landlord took appropriate action by issuing a warning letter to the neighbour. This was a proactive approach in line with its policy and demonstrated the landlord’s continued effort to resolve the matter.
During February 2025 the landlord carried out a further visit to the resident to discuss the ongoing issues of noise nuisance. She stated it had offered her a potential move, however we have not seen evidence to support this. During the visit, the resident stated the landlord had witnessed the noise disturbances and acknowledged how much she would have been suffering because of this. The evidence shows the resident was offered a 2-night stay at a hotel for respite on 17 February 2025. Following this she was also approved for band 1 priority on the housing register.
The landlord’s ASB policy does not include hotel stays as a solution for dealing with noise nuisance. However, given the longstanding issue and the impact it was causing to the resident, we find this was a reasonable approach to take in the circumstances.
The resident continued to experience noise nuisance from her neighbour and reported this in April 2025. At the time the landlord informed her that the neighbour was moving in around 8 weeks. We have not seen evidence to show when the neighbour moved out of the building. However, we note the resident was temporarily housed in August 2025 and she confirmed the neighbour has since moved out.
We recognise the resident requested a move or for the perpetrator to be moved. Often this is reliant on available resources and in some cases a move may not happen promptly. Throughout this time, we see the landlord assisted both parties in attempting to move, ultimately leading to the neighbour successfully moving out.
Overall, we recognise the landlord took steps to support and assist both the resident and neighbour with resolving the ongoing ASB. It is clear the noise issue was ongoing for some time. However we find the steps taken were not sufficient in resolving the matter as there were some avoidable delays, such as issuing the advice letter.

Resident’s reports about her wellbeing.

The resident explained the ongoing noise nuisance was severely impacting her mental health.
We recognise how distressing this time must have been for the resident, and we do not discount the impact caused to her mental health. However we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. We have however looked at the landlord’s actions once it was informed of her health concerns.
In this case we see that on 3 September 2024 the resident contacted the landlord stating that she felt it did not care about her health conditions and the impact the ASB was having on her. She has bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression, insecurity and has migraines. She stated the ongoing ASB was causing her ill health. We have not seen that anything was done in September in regard to her concerns.
On 17 October 2024 the landlord asked the resident for consent to refer her to a victim support organisation. It explained the organisation offered a variety of support which might benefit her while she waited for an update from the noise team. The resident confirmed it could refer her.
It is unclear why there was a delay in the landlord signposting the resident. Given the reported impact to her mental health and the ongoing issue of noise nuisance, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to refer her sooner.
On 27 October 2024 we see the resident reiterated her mental health was being impacted and she was feeling suicidal. She further wrote to the landlord informing it that the ongoing issues had led to her self-harming as a coping mechanism. Following this the landlord arranged a meeting with the resident on 4 November 2024 to discuss the ongoing matter. It encouraged her to use the support of her GP, the victim support organisation and relevant charities.
Landlords have a responsibility to support the wellbeing of residents, and we would expect the landlord to offer support within its limits and signpost residents to appropriate external parties to deal with mental health matters. In this instance while we recognise the landlord did this, there was a delay. We find this was unreasonable. The delay left the resident feeling unsupported at times and contributed to increased distress.

Summary.

In summary, while we recognise the landlord took appropriate measures to resolve the ongoing ASB as per its policy, there were delays in issuing the neighbour with an advice letter and signposting the resident to third party organisations for support. This period was very distressing for the resident, and this is evident in the repeat correspondence sent to the landlord about the impact to her mental health. Given these delays and overall impact on the resident, we have found there was a service failure and ordered compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the delays in its service. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should provide us with evidence to confirm payment.