Leicester City Council (202520393)
Back to Top
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202520393 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Leicester City Council |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Secure Tenancy |
|
Date |
20 March 2026 |
Background
- The resident lives in a 1-bedroom, 2nd floor flat with her partner and 3 young children since October 2022. The resident complained about overcrowding and ongoing antisocial behaviour in communal areas of the block. The resident reported to the landlord that her environment and living conditions were unsuitable for her family and it was impacting on her mental health and the welfare of her and her children.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Reports of overcrowding and request to move.
- Reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
- Associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found:
- No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of overcrowding and the request to move.
- Maladministration in relation to how the landlord handled reports of ASB.
- Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Reports of overcrowding and the request to move.
- The landlord acted appropriately in line with its policies and procedures in recognising the resident’s urgent housing needs by initiating a management transfer process. It appropriately considered the resident’s changing circumstances and vulnerabilities by reviewing the resident’s exceptional circumstances. It acted fairly to offer a move outside of its choice-based lettings in view of this. In its complaint responses it communicated clearly and transparently about its allocations process, competing demand for housing, and waiting times.
Reports of ASB
- The landlord took proactive action in response to the resident’s initial reports of ASB. However, it failed to maintain adequate case management records, establish an action plan or provide regular updates to the resident in line with its published service standards on how it will deal with ASB. The landlord failed to recognise its failure to manage the case appropriately through its ASB procedure and to manage the resident’s expectations.
Complaint handling
- The landlord unreasonably delayed its complaint handling at each stage which it failed to acknowledge or offer any form of redress for in its complaint responses.
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:
|
No later than 17 April 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows:
This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. |
No later than 17 April 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord is to provide the resident with an update with an expected timescale on the current progress and the completion of void works regarding the allocated property. |
|
The landlord is to contact the resident to establish the current position regarding anti-social behaviour. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
24 April 2025 |
The resident reported ongoing ASB including drug related activity and fights in the communal areas of the building and blood stains on bannisters. |
|
11 July and 26 August 2025 |
The resident made her complaint to the landlord. She said her living circumstances were an unsuitable environment for her and her children due to overcrowding and ASB and was impacting on her mental health. She said she felt let down because the landlord did not contact the fire service to complete health and safety checks or complete an overcrowding assessment. In August, she said her housing officer, had not given adequate support. She also expressed dissatisfaction at the landlord’s decision to refuse her request to move. |
|
09 September 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said:
|
|
3 September and 3 October 2025 |
The resident escalated her complaint. She made a further complaint about flea bites from the communal stairwell. In October, the resident also stated her daughter had heard neighbours talking about a recent murder in the neighbourhood. The resident said her mental health was deteriorating and that she did not feel safe. She requested an emergency move. |
|
17 October 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman 19 August 2025 |
The resident brought her complaint to us. The resident said that she felt the landlord had not taken sufficient action in view of evidence she submitted about how ASB and overcrowding was affecting her mental health and the wellbeing of and her family. |
|
28 October 2025 |
Following contact with us, the resident reported damp and mould in her property. We gave notice to the landlord indicating that there could be a hazard which could fall under Awaab’s Law obligations on this date. |
|
14 November 2025 |
The landlord approved the resident’s request to move. We note the resident has since accepted a 3-bedroom property. Following our recent contact with the resident on 5 March 2026 the resident has told us she is still awaiting a date for when she can move into the allocated property. |
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 |
Reports of overcrowding and managed move. |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- We cannot consider matters relating to the local authority’s allocations policy as this falls under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). We have focused our assessment solely on whether the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies when considering the resident’s request for a move, and whether it reasonably addressed her reports of overcrowding and safety. A management move is a discretionary option open to the landlord to offer alternative accommodation outside of its usual lettings process, which it will only consider in exceptional circumstances.
- The evidence shows the resident was already in band one priority due to statutory overcrowding, and the landlord updated her application to include 3-bedroom properties in July 2025 in accordance with its allocation’s procedure. Following the resident’s disclosures about her mental wellbeing due to the impact of ASB and overcrowding in April 2025, and the difficulties in finding suitable properties via the bidding system, the landlord acted reasonably to explore the option of a management move. It requested supporting evidence in line with its policy, which demonstrated it promptly recognised the significance of the resident’s need.
- The landlord submitted a direct let application to its head of service for a decision in accordance with its procedure, but its head of service refused the request based on competing priority needs for housing. This was consistent with the policy requirement for an evidence-based assessment of exceptional circumstances balanced on those with the highest housing need.
- However, there is no record of when the landlord communicated its decision, which was a failing in its record keeping and communication with the resident. We note from the resident’s communication with the landlord she was aware of the landlord’s decision to decline her request to move on 26 August 2025, which means there was a delay of up to 4 months before the resident found out about its decision. Although this was a considerable period, the landlord did provide a reasonable explanation for its decision during the first complaint response. The reasons aligned with its policy when balancing fairness and competing needs of residents. It gave appropriate advice to the resident to continue to bid on properties and report a change in circumstances so it could review her request. In its first complaint response the landlord also confirmed it had made an appropriate health and safety referral to the fire service.
- When the resident later reported new concerns in October 2025 arising from a homicide incident in the locality, the landlord appropriately reassessed her circumstances and resubmitted a request for a management move. In its final complaint response at stage 2, the landlord agreed to re-submit the resident’s application and said in the meantime she should continue to bid on suitable properties, which was reasonable. Following updated evidence about the wellbeing of the resident’s daughter, the landlord provided a timely decision in which it approved the resident’s request to move. In December, it offered a 3-bedroom property. This demonstrated a prompt and proportionate response to the resident’s reports of new events and the change in circumstances.
- The landlord’s second response was reasonable and proportionate. The landlord demonstrated it provided accurate advice to the resident throughout its process. Despite its delayed communication of the first decision to decline the move, the landlord demonstrated it appropriately adapted its assessment following new events and acted fairly and transparently in accordance with its procedures.
- Overall, the landlord applied its policy appropriately, responded to the resident’s changing needs, and acted fairly to resolve the dispute. The delay and lack of communication regarding the first request to move was a service level shortcoming but it did not materially alter the outcome. Therefore, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the managed move or overcrowding issues.
- We have made a recommendation for the landlord to provide the resident with an expected timescale for the completion of works to the allocated property.
|
Complaint |
Reports of ASB |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- Under ASB legislation landlords are responsible for taking reasonable and proportionate steps to address persistent nuisance or disorder associated with their properties. Our role is to assess whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s ASB reports and acted in line with its ASB policy.
- The landlord’s ASB policy commits to dealing with ASB on a case-by-case basis through its incremental approach by early intervention and prevention. It says it is committed to working with partner agencies. It has published guidance about its ASB procedure as well as online service standard expectations which sets out when it aims to agree a contact and action plan with a resident and provide regular updates while the case is open, within 10 working days and 20 working days respectively. It aims to issue advice or warning notices within 20 working days or 60 working days for non-legal measures such as acceptable behaviour contract or community protection notices. For more serious cases it aims to escalate to legal action in 90 working days.
- The resident made multiple reports from 24 April 2025 about communal activity, including drug use, intimidation, noise and health and safety concerns which she said was affecting her and her children’s wellbeing. The evidence shows the landlord took prompt and proportionate action in response to the resident’s first report.
- By the end of April, the landlord had carried out a welfare visit and completed timely referrals to other agencies such as victim support. It also shared intelligence with the crime bureau, and contacted the police for increased patrols. In June the landlord issued written advice letters and warning letters to the identified neighbours and visited the block of flats to speak to other residents to try and identify the cause of ASB. This aligned with its incremental approach to tackling ASB. The landlord’s early actions met its service level expectations, the records show it took proactive and timely action and worked effectively with partner agencies, which is positive.
- However, the resident’s reports of ASB continued between May and August 2025, and it is unclear whether the landlord took additional steps because it has not evidenced its case management processes, or how it had adhered to its ASB procedure during this time. The records show individual activity log records for 24 April, 31 July, 5 August and 27 August 2025 marked as ‘resolved’ without any explanation of the action taken, and the landlord did not document how it assessed or closed each report.
- Although the records show a joint visit by housing and ASB officers took place before its final complaint response in October 2025, and the landlord said it continued to work with the police and partner agencies, there is no evidence of further incremental action or structured monitoring following the resident’s continued reports. Its ASB procedure requires an agreed action plan and ongoing updates, but there is no evidence that the landlord shared its action plan with the resident, or that it monitored the ASB and escalated matters in accordance with its service level timescales.
- Further, the landlord has not demonstrated it maintained adequate communication with the resident. The resident raised concerns about poor communication, which the landlord did not demonstrate it had addressed in its complaint responses, or through a coordinated action plan.
- There is no evidence that the landlord provided regular updates to the resident in line with its service level expectations. For example, in May 2025 the record indicates there was unsuccessful contact with the resident by phone, it is unclear if or when it provided this update. And in July the records show the ASB officer said the resident’s housing officer was providing her with ASB updates, but we have seen no record of any updates. There was a lack of coordination between the internal housing and ASB teams which contributed to inconsistent updates at a time when the resident required clarity and support. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have set out as part of its action plan, how it would monitor the situation and keep the resident updated.
- The records provided to us by the landlord were incomplete, were not in date order and were heavily redacted. This limited the landlord’s ability to evidence its actions, and as such our ability to assess the reasonableness of its response and if it met its service level timescales. The records do not show when it opened an ASB case, what steps it took in response to each report, or when and why the landlord considered it closed. These gaps amount to significant record-keeping and communication failures.
- The landlord only shared evidence of risk assessments from late September 2025, despite the seriousness of the earlier reports and the resident’s vulnerabilities. While it demonstrated it had taken some proactive steps at the outset that acknowledged the resident’s vulnerabilities, it did not demonstrate how it assessed risk or how it incorporated risk assessments into its overall response. This would have been reasonable to inform any action plan and to adequately mange the resident’s expectations so that residents felt listened to and supported.
- In its final complaint responses, the landlord did not acknowledge any failings and therefore it did not act in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles – to act fairly – to put things right – to learn from outcomes. It failed to recognise the impact that its poor communications and inadequate case management had on a vulnerable household.
- Therefore, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. To reflect the cumulative failings identified, the landlord’s failure to acknowledge this in its final complaint responses or the likely increased adverse impact for the resident due to her and her household’s vulnerabilities we order the landlord to apologise and to pay compensation as outlined above. This is in line with our remedies guidance for this level of failing for avoidable distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in chasing the progress of the reported ASB matters.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The landlord has a published complaints policy which includes timeframes for its acknowledgment and response to complaints. The policy aligns with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This set out that a landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints in 10 and 20 working days respectively. The landlord’s published complaints policy at each complaint stage it may need to extend the response deadline. If so, it will inform the resident of the reasons to manage expectations.
- The evidence shows the landlord labelled the resident’s contact dated 11 July 2025 as a stage 1 compliant, but it took no action to acknowledge or respond to the complaint. It awaited further contact from the resident on 26 August 2025 before it responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 3 September 2025. Again, there is no record of any acknowledgment. The landlord has not provided an explanation for a delay in its stage 1 response which amounted to 38 working days and fell unreasonably outside of its policy timeframe.
- On 3 September 2025, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 which the landlord’s logged. However, there is no record that it had acknowledged the escalation request. The resident made a second request to escalate her complaint on 3 October 2025. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 October 2025, which was 32 working days later. Once again, this fell outside of its policy timeframe.
- While the records show there was evidence of a delay in the landlord’s ability to provide a response due to staff resource issues, there is no evidence it had followed its policy by communicating with the resident to ask for an extension of time.
- The landlord has not acted in line with our dispute resolution principles to put things right for the resident or offer redress for its delay in complaint handling nor has it demonstrated it has learnt lessons. It failed to acknowledge or escalate the resident’s complaint at each stage, and it did not provide an explanation for its delayed complaint responses.
- Therefore, we find maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We consider the identified failings were significant given what the landlord knew about the resident’s vulnerabilities and the context her complaint about a lack of communications from the landlord. We order it to pay compensation, as outlined above, to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience, time and trouble in chasing her complaints.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord should improve its record keeping for ASB cases. Its records were not chronological, did not include essential information such as risk assessments or contact notes, and made it unclear when cases were opened or closed. The landlord should review how it records compliance with its time-bound service level expectations.
Communication
- The landlord did not provide evidence of all its communications with the resident. This resulted in the resident’s loss of confidence in the landlord and undermined the actions it took to progress the resident’s concerns. The landlord should ensure it agrees a specific point of contact responsible for handling all contact with a resident. This is so the landlord can adopt a coordinated, consistent and timely approach to providing updates.
Complaint handling
- The landlord should ensure it acknowledges complaints and it notifies resident of the reasons for extending its complaint response before the deadline in line with its policy