Leicester City Council (202511296)

Background

1. The resident lives in a semidetached house with her 2 children. One of her children has a learning disability which the landlord is aware of. The resident reported alleged antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour to the landlord which included criminal damage, noise nuisance and threats to her and her family. She was dissatisfied this had been ongoing and that it had not taken sufficient action.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord is responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. Service failure in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of ASB

5. The landlord failed to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB prior to her making a formal complaint and despite her requesting it do so as part of her complaint.
6. The landlord failed to follow its ASB policy in responding to the resident’s reports of incidents with her neighbour. This includes delay in responding to the resident’s reports, failing to complete a risk assessment, and not considering the tools it had at its disposal such as target hardening or mediation.
7. The landlord forwarded her reports of noise to its noise team but did not monitor or provide any evidence of the outcome of its noise investigation.

Handling of the complaint

8. The landlord delayed in responding to the complaint at both stages. It failed to identify these failures, and it did not apologise to the resident.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

9. It is not within our role to establish whether someone has committed ASB, but to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will determine whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own policies and procedures.
10. The landlord did not address its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB prior to it recording her formal complaint in March 2025. This was inappropriate as the resident’s complaint included concerns that it had not taken action in response to her previous ASB reports. As there were ASB reports made in the time leading up to the resident’s formal complaint including an ASB case recorded on 30 August 2024, this was a failure by the landlord to address all aspects of her complaint.
11. From 30 August 2024 to the landlord’s final response on 12 June 2025, it recorded several ASB cases. In each one, it contacted the resident promptly to discuss the details of her report. This was in line with the timeframe set out in its ASB policy which states it will contact residents within 3 working days to discuss their ASB case.
12. The landlord also completed risk assessments in the majority of the ASB cases. It established the support the resident already had in place and worked with partner agencies to understand the resident’s vulnerabilities and current mental health. It is unclear however, why it failed to complete a risk assessment of the ASB case it recorded on 6 May 2025. This was not in keeping with its ASB policy and particularly concerning given the impact of the issues on the resident’s mental health and the ongoing nature of her ASB reports.
13. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will write to residents informing them that their ASB case is closed. The landlord has not provided evidence it did so. Had it done this, it may have provided the resident with a greater understanding of the actions it had taken to investigate her concerns during each ASB case as well as the reasons why the case had been closed.

Reports of criminal damage

14. The resident reported criminal damage to her fence and gate and a break in of her shed. She told the landlord and police she thought her neighbour and their family members were responsible. It was positive that the landlord sought information from the police on each occasion, in keeping with its ASB policy and its commitment to working with partner agencies. Each time, the police confirmed there was insufficient evidence to link the criminal damage and break in with her neighbour as there were no witnesses and no CCTV evidence of the incidents. Without sufficient evidence, it was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not take action against the neighbour as it would not have been proportionate for it to do so.
15. The resident also told the landlord on 13 January 2025, that her neighbour had thrown a brick at her roof which had damaged it and caused a hole. She said its repair operative had found this brick in the loft space. The landlord’s response was insufficient as it did not demonstrate it investigated this matter with its repairs team. Had it done so, it could have confirmed how the damage was caused. This was a missed opportunity by it to establish what had happened and would have been useful information even if it couldn’t link it to a specific individual. This demonstrated the landlord had not taken this concern seriously.
16. The resident told the landlord there was a strong burning smell coming from the neighbour’s property which she believed was causing hairline cracks to appear on the walls. She has also told us that the neighbour banging against the shared wall has created these cracks too. The landlord failed to respond to this part of the resident’s complaint. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to our order that it provides her a written response to these concerns, she may be able to raise a new complaint with the landlord.

Noise nuisance

17. The resident made a number of reports of noise nuisance from the neighbour which included deliberate banging against the shared wall of the 2 properties and screaming and shouting from household members. The first record of a noise report made by the resident was on 14 January 2025. The landlord sent a letter to the neighbour at the time, and it spoke with them directly. This was appropriate action by the landlord.
18. The landlord also made a referral to its noise team after each of the resident’s reports. However, it has failed to provide any evidence or detail of the outcome of these referrals. The resident has told us she was not contacted by its noise team and that no action was taken to investigate the noise reports.
19. The landlord should be able to provide clear records of its investigations into reports of noise nuisance, and the lack of information has made it difficult for us to assess its handling of the matter. This was a failure by the landlord in its record keeping and its handling of the resident’s noise reports. Our order that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss current noise reports is due to her stating that the issue is ongoing.
20. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident should be aware of the difficulties in managing noise from children as it can rarely take enforcement action in regard to such noise. It also visited the resident on 13 March 2025 to explain the same. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to give the resident this general advice, it should be mindful that it does not make assumptions about the cause of noise without having established the facts of the matter.

Verbal abuse and threats

21. The resident reported verbal abuse and threats made by the neighbour and their household and visitors against her and her family. The landlord did visit the neighbour with the police on 20 September 2024 to issue a verbal warning to the neighbour’s son following a verbal altercation with the resident. This was appropriate action by the landlord although its records do not provide any detail about this incident or the warning given. If the landlord is providing a verbal warning in relation to an ASB incident, it should consider recording the details. This will help it understand the history of ASB incidents should it need to review them in the future.
22. The resident made another report of a threat made against her from the neighbour’s household member and said they had also damaged her front fence in April 2025.The landlord contacted the police who had closed the case as they could not identify the alleged perpetrator. The landlord discussed the details of the resident’s report with her, but it then closed the case without taking any action.
23. The landlord was concerned that the resident had been accused of making false reports against the neighbour. The landlord was right to consider the impact of false reporting and had a duty to ensure it was taking a fair approach based on evidence. However, it also failed to provide evidence it discussed the allegations of false reporting by the resident with her directly and therefore it didn’t give her an opportunity to respond at the time. This failure by the landlord caused the resident distress.
24. The landlord should have considered what more it could do in the circumstances of the case, especially due to the difficulty in evidencing the alleged ASB. For example, the resident told the landlord she did not feel safe in her property due to alleged threats by the neighbour. The landlord’s ASB policy states it has several tools at its disposal including target hardening measures. It has not provided sufficient evidence it considered doing this, or other measures that might have been appropriate such as mediation.
25. As part of the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 23 May 2025, she referred to an incident where her and her son were threatened with a hedge cutter. The landlord responded at stage 2 and said it had no record of this and asked her to provide it with details so that it could consider an investigation. It was inappropriate for the landlord to wait until its stage 2 response on 12 June 2025 to address this concern. As it already had an ASB case open at the time, it should have contacted her promptly to understand the details and decide whether it would investigate further. Furthermore, the landlord put the onus on the resident to provide it with details when she had already told it what had happened. It did not discuss this with the resident until it visited her in person on 26 June 2025, more than a month later. This was an unreasonable delay.
26. The landlord’s policies do not describe the circumstances in which it would consider re-housing a resident due to ASB. However, it said in its final response to the resident that to do so, it would need strong evidence and due to the difficulties in proving the resident’s allegations, it would not be recommending a managed move. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take, and it also provided information and support with the mutual exchange process. It might wish to consider amending its policy to include the criteria for re-housing due to ASB.
27. We understand the resident has continued to report ASB from the neighbour following the landlord’s final response on 12 June 2025. Whilst we understand this has caused her distress, it is outside the scope of our investigation to look at the landlord’s handling of ASB after its final response. This is because the landlord needs to have the opportunity to respond to this through its complaint process should the resident be dissatisfied with its handling of the ASB. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, she may be able to refer the new complaint to us for consideration.

28. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 response within 13 working days. This was in keeping with its complaints policy. However, it delayed in responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint and did so in 22 working days. This was a failure in its complaint handling. We have ordered it to apologise to the resident in writing for this failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord should consider how its ASB service links with its noise team so that records are shared and noted against the relevant ASB case.

Communication

30. The landlord has provided very little evidence regarding its communication with the resident. This suggests its communication was limited or its record keeping was poor. Either way, this likely contributed to the failures identified in this report.