From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

North Yorkshire Council (202343463)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343463

North Yorkshire Council

9 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 the resident’s reports of:
    1. antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.
    2. damp in the kitchen, living room, and hallway.
    3. various repairs, including repointing in the loft, a drafty bathroom window, and a missing seal on the front door.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which began in 2013. The property is a 2-bedroom semi-detached house, which the resident occupies with her adult family. The adjoined property is privately owned. The resident has vulnerabilities the landlord is aware of.
  2. There is a long history of the resident reporting ASB from her neighbour. This includes reports of excessive noise, being verbally and physically aggressive, and deliberately causing damp and odours in her property. We investigated a complaint from the resident concerning some of these reports up to November 2022 (reference 202205439). In this we found the landlord had taken some appropriate actions, including being in regular contact with her, arranging a multi-agency meeting, and offering interventions to address the problems. However, we identified that there was no evidence of the landlord undertaking any risk assessments during the period we looked at.
  3. After the events we investigated, the landlord installed noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s home in late April 2023. There was no excessive noise recorded. It later closed the 4-year-old ASB case in November 2023 because of no new evidenced ASB. The resident was though continuing to report some of the same problems, including that her neighbours were allowing water to discharge onto the property causing damp in her kitchen and were “pumping smells” into the property. She also reported damp in her living room and hallway, that mortar in her loft area had come away, and there were gaps around the bathroom window.
  4. Between October 2023 and July 2024, the resident made 5 complaints about her evolving concerns about the landlord’s responses to her ASB reports and repair issues. In her later emails in early June 2024, she said she was unhappy about the landlord’s response to then recent reports that her neighbour was causing a nuisance because she said it told her to contact the police. She also complained she had heard nothing further after the investigation of the damp in the kitchen. She added that she was not satisfied with the standard of the repair in the loft and that other repairs were outstanding but did not specify what these were.
  5. In its stage 1 response of 15 August 2024, the landlord said there was only one repair outstanding (a bathroom radiator) at that time. It said that the repointing was completed by an experienced operative and had been inspected and signed off. The landlord confirmed it had advised the resident to report her concerns about the neighbour trying to cause her harm to the police because of the nature of them. It said it was only responsible for the associated repairs.
  6. On 10 September 2024, the landlord met with the resident to discuss her outstanding concerns. It recorded that the resident was dissatisfied with its response to her recent and historical ASB reports and said it had taken no action over the previous 11 years. She was also unhappy with the repair in the loft because the landlord had used expanding foam instead of mortar. The landlord recorded that it had inspected for various repair issues raised at the meeting.
  7. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 25 September 2024. It said it had investigated some of the reports of ASB she had made at the meeting and it and the police had seen insufficient evidence. It found it had responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of ASB, had taken some actions to address the issues, and said it would continue “to take a proportionate and reasonable approach” to future ones. The landlord confirmed it would carry out further inspections of the damp in the kitchen, living room, and hallway. It confirmed repairs it had raised, including to repoint with mortar in the loft, renew hinges on the bathroom window, and replace the seal on the front door.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in early January 2025. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB and that it said it was unable to take action against her neighbours because they are homeowners. She also said it had not investigated her concerns of damp in the kitchen or completed repairs agreed to the living room and hallway. She said the repointing in the loft and repairs to the window were also outstanding. When we spoke to the resident in July 2025, she said most of the repairs had been completed but she was unhappy about the time it had taken. The resident said the circumstances of her complaint have affected her mental health. She advised she was seeking the landlord to take action against her neighbour under its ASB policy and complete any outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has been reporting ASB incidents from her neighbour for around 10 years. We have completed 2 investigations into the landlord’s handling of the reports up to November 2022. Some of the reports of ASB relate to the repair issues. This investigation does not cover matters that have been previously determined by us. Rather, we have investigated matters from       April 2023 until the landlord issued its stage 2 response in September 2024.
  2. Since referring her complaint to us, the resident reported new issues that have arisen, including further reports of ASB and repairs to a heat pump. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new complaints about it prior to the involvement of this Service.
  3. The resident advised us that her mental health has been affected by the circumstances of her complaint. The courts or a personal injury insurer are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. Consideration in this investigation will be given to any emotional or material impacts, such as distress and inconvenience, that any failings on the landlord’s part may have caused.

ASB

  1. At the time of the events concerned, the landlord said it followed policies it had in place prior to it merging with 2 other local councils. It is unclear, but it seems more likely than not, that this was also the case with its ASB policy. The landlord’s new policy, issued in April 2025, adopts some of the same process and timescales to follow as the old policy. Some of this process is also based on best practice in handling ASB reports. As such, we have decided it is more likely than not that the landlord would have been expected to follow the same steps outlined in its old policy.
  2. When a tenant reported ASB the policy stated it would carry out the following actions in all cases:
    1. record the report on its system and keep notes at all stages of its process.
    2. categorise the associated risk to determine the level of priority and timescale for its response.
    3. contact the person reporting to discuss the issue, any next steps and/or give a decision on whether ASB is evidenced.
    4. set expectations about what can be achieved by it or one of its partner agencies.

The policy states that it may, where ASB is evidenced, take informal actions such as sending written warnings or offering mediation. In more serious cases it may take formal actions, such as pursuing a civil injunction. It may also liaise with other agencies to investigate or support the person reporting ASB.

  1. During the period concerned, the resident reported a number of behaviours from her neighbour that she said were causing damage to her property and potentially her health. This included that they were causing “toxic smells” to enter her home, allowing water to escape from an external pipe, and were burning vegetation in their garden which was setting the fire alarm off.
  2. One of the overarching complaints the resident made was that the landlord had not, in her view, taken any action against her neighbour in response to her ASB reports. In its August 2024 stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed it had advised the resident to contact the police about her concerns relating to the fire alarm incident. It was reasonable to signpost the resident to report what was potentially a crime. However, we would expect to see that the landlord was still following its ASB policy, unless it had documented and communicated to the resident a good reason not to.
  3. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord logged the resident’s reports on its ASB system. We have also seen no evidence in the records that it explained its decision not to log the resident’s reports as ASB. If the landlord felt that these were similar reports to ones she had raised and it had already responded appropriately, it should have explained this to the resident. There is no evidence that we have seen to show it did this. It also missed an opportunity to clarify its position in its complaint responses.
  4. The landlord should have, in any event, logged any new reports, such as the fire alarm incident. Not recording the resident’s reports of ASB on its system was a missed opportunity for it to assess or reassess the level of risk to the resident. This is important not only for the landlord to categorise how it will prioritise its response, but also to identify if there is support it could provide or signpost her to. As such, we have identified a failing in its logging of the resident’s ASB reports.
  5. In the final response from late September 2024, the landlord confirmed some actions it had taken to investigate and respond to the resident’s various reports. This included that it had considered new evidence she had provided that she believed supported her view that smells were being pumped into her home. It said it had not seen any evidence to support taking further action on any of the reports. It though confirmed it would be completing repairs, including repointing in the loft.
  6. The records show that the landlord took some actions from its ASB policy set out above, albeit not logged on its ASB system. It spoke to the resident and investigated her concerns. It explained what evidence was needed and sent diary sheets for her to complete. The landlord also liaised with the police and environmental health over her concerns about smoke setting off her fire alarm. It offered some solutions, such as completing repairs to address the smell and damp issues. It gave decisions on reports where it could. As such, the evidence shows us it did take some appropriate actions outlined in its ASB policy. The landlord’s decision then, that it had done everything it could to investigate and address the issues, was reasonable.
  7. One of the reasons for the resident referring her complaint to us was that she believed the landlord could take more actions to address her neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord was correct to advise the resident that its powers were more limited because her neighbour is not its tenant. However, as it confirmed, there are a range of interventions the landlord’s ASB policy states it may take. Importantly, it advised the resident to continue to make reports to it and to keep records. This is because sufficient evidence is usually needed to support taking the formal actions the resident wants it to take.

Conclusion – ASB

  1. The sensitivities of this case are not lost on this Service, given the longstanding nature of some of the reports. This is complicated by the fact that the landlord did not see there was sufficient evidence to support it carrying out further actions under its ASB policy in the period concerned in this report. We have seen that it took some appropriate actions, in line with its policy, and considering the circumstances of this case.
  2. It has not though evidenced that it logged the resident’s reports on its ASB system and/or that there was a reason for this. It also missed an opportunity to complete a risk assessment when the resident reported a new incident, and to reassess the impact of any of the reoccurring reports. This was also the same failing we identified in our last investigation. We are unable to say this would have led to a different outcome. We are also unable to determine that it would have changed the resident’s view that the landlord was not taking action against her neighbour, which the evidence show is a longstanding opinion of hers. However, given what our investigation has identified, we have made a finding of service failure and have ordered the landlord to improve its awareness of its ASB policy and best practice amongst its staff.

Damp

  1. The landlord has an obligation under the resident’s tenancy agreement to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe. According to the landlord’s self-assessment against the recommendations of our 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould, it aimed to inspect reports of damp and mould within 10 working days of a report. The landlord’s repair timescales were 10 working days for repairs that had a degree of urgency, 30 working days for lower risk routine issues, and 60 working days for repairs it could complete under its “planned maintenance scheme.” Its website confirms that planned repairs include repointing, insulation top up, and drainage repairs.
  2. Our 2019 spotlight report on repairs highlighted the need for “landlords [to] keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail.” This is so it can demonstrate that it has met its obligations. In practice, this means that a landlord should be able to evidence what repairs were reported, what action it took and when, and whether any further works were required. In this case, the record’s provided did not include all this detail. We are therefore unable to say with certainty what happened and when. However, where undisputed, we have relied on both the accounts given by the resident in her complaint emails and the landlord’s responses.
  3. The landlord raised an instruction to inspect the resident’s kitchen for a potential damp problem in mid July 2023. It is undisputed that this inspection took place in October 2023 as the resident referred to it in an email sent later that month. This was within the 60 working day timescale allocated for the inspection. However, this was inappropriate because it should have followed its damp and mould timescale. It had also been over 2 years since it last inspected the kitchen for damp, according to the repair logs. There has been no explanation or apology for this in any of the responses. As such, the landlord missed an opportunity to recognise its failing and take steps to put things right for the resident.
  4. The findings from the inspection are not documented on the repair logs. However, they show that the landlord raised a repair in mid-December 2023 for the leaking external drainpipe that was discharging water onto the resident’s property. The evidence explains this delay was due to the landlord considering who was responsible for the repair, which was reasonable given it was a pipe shared with the neighbour. We know it completed this because the resident referred to it in her email on 16 February 2024 complaining that there had been no inspection under the kitchen floorboards. We are satisfied the landlord completed this repair within a reasonable time and, once the instruction was raised, within the routine timescale it allocated.
  5. After raising an instruction to inspect the living room and hallway for damp, a surveyor inspected the problem, including the kitchen, on 1 March 2024. This was within 6 working days which was appropriate because it was within its damp and mould timescale. The repair logs do not record the landlord’s findings. However, the landlord commented on them in a complaint response from 11 March 2024. It said that no damp was found in the kitchen. The records also show the landlord further inspected the problem in April 2024 following a report from the resident that it still smelt of damp and there was mould in the cupboard. Although not recorded in the contemporaneous evidence, the landlord advised us that there was also no damp or mould, or smell of, found at this inspection.
  6. The resident continued to dispute the landlord’s findings and reported several times smelling damp in the kitchen. The landlord agreed to reinspect under a base unit in its September 2024 final response. It was not required to reinspect, given its previous findings. The resident had also not reported any new issues that would suggest a deteriorating damp issue, such as evidence of damage or mould. However, it was reasonable to offer this as a solution. This inspection took place in late 2024 or January 2025, according to the correspondence between the resident and landlord. It again did not find damp. We recognise the resident continues to dispute the landlord’s findings, but there is enough evidence to show that the landlord has proportionately investigated her concerns. It is also entitled to rely on the findings of its operatives.
  7. According to the complaint response from March 2024, the surveyor found “minor damp” in the living room and hallway. It said it had raised an instruction to inspect the cavity wall insulation. It allocated its planned maintenance timescale. While the problem was found to be minor, and therefore unlikely to pose a risk, the priority given for the nature of the investigation was inappropriate. It should have completed this within its routine timescale. The landlord also then exceeded the planned timescale because the landlord advised us it completed this on 10 December 2024. This was around 168 working days over its routine timescale, and 137 working days over its planned. It missed an opportunity to acknowledge and take steps to put things right in its September 2024 response. As such, there was service failure in the time it took the landlord to complete further investigations and its complaint response.

Conclusion – damp

  1. It was also not evidenced in the repair logs shared what the further investigation into the causes of the minor damp problem in the living room and hallway found. However, the resident advised us in July 2025 that the landlord was carrying out some works to address this. The landlord also advised us it was continuing its investigations into the cause of damp in the hallway and had appointed a damp specialist in August 2025. While the fact the landlord has not resolved the damp problem in the hallway must be frustrating to the resident, it is not an indication of a failing. We recognised in our spotlight report on damp that the cause can be complex and may require multiple investigations to establish. However, the landlord’s actions caused avoidable delays and, with that, added distress to the resident. Because of this, and its failure to take accountability through the complaints process, we have made a finding of maladministration. We have ordered it to pay compensation that is proportionate to the impact on the resident, and is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Various repairs – loft, bathroom window, and front door

  1. One of the key issues the resident continued to raise throughout the period we have investigated was about the pointing in her loft. This related to her historical reports that her neighbour was pumping smells into her home. The landlord raised an instruction to inspect the resident’s reports on 21 August 2023. It is apparent from the resident’s complaint from 31 October 2023 that an inspection took place, but when this was is unclear. In this email she said she had not heard anything further after the inspection. An instruction was raised to repoint the “defective” mortar around a month later but the time it took is unexplained in the evidence, or the landlord’s complaint responses. This was a failing that caused the resident time and trouble in chasing the repair. However, it is likely that the landlord met its 60 working day timescale because the resident complained about the standard of the work in mid-February 2024. This was reasonable because there is no evidence the landlord identified a risk of harm to the resident or property that would require it to act more urgently.
  2. The resident said she was unhappy with the standard of the repair because the landlord had used expanding foam. The resident’s concerns were understandable because the instruction it shared with her stated the repair involved repointing with mortar. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to update her with any changes but we have seen no evidence of this. Initially the landlord said it was satisfied the work was to a reasonable standard. It then agreed in the final response to repoint any gaps, which was appropriate. However, it did not comment on the standard of the work and whether its stage 1 response was correct on this point. This was not in line with the standard set in its complaints policy, which said its responses would include analysis of a complaint and an explanation of the decision. Both are also an expectation of the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
  3. The landlord raised an instruction to complete the repointing by 11 December 2024. However, the accounts from both the resident and landlord shows it exceeded this timescale by at least 60 working days, although we were unable to establish exactly when it was completed. Some of this is explained by the fact the records show the landlord had to reschedule 2 appointments to meet the resident’s availability. We are unable to hold the landlord responsible for any delays caused by factors outside of its control, as was the case here.
  4. One of the other repairs the resident said she was unhappy about the time taken to complete was the bathroom window. We have seen the landlord advised her on 6 March 2024 that a repair had been raised to fit a new seal around the window and to check the frame was not twisted. It said it would complete this within its routine timescale of 30 working days. However, the landlord advised us that this was completed on 23 September 2024, which was 110 working days over its given timescale. Nothing in the evidence shared explains this. It is a failing that the landlord cannot demonstrate that it completed this repair and within its timescales. We are aware that the landlord subsequently decided to renew the window in around February 2025. While this may have been frustrating to the resident because of the time it added, it was reasonable and in line with its obligations to attempt a repair first if it believed it could. The time it took though was clearly inappropriate and will have protracted the resolution of this issue.
  5. The resident informed us that the front door seal the landlord agreed to renew as part of its stage 2 response has not been completed. The landlord though advised us that it had completed all repairs, but it did not provide dates for when these happened. The records, however, state that the front door repair was closed as completed. It is unclear if the landlord has completed a repair to the front door and not recorded the date or if it is still outstanding. Either way it is a failing that the landlord cannot demonstrate it met its obligations.

Repairs – conclusion

  1. It is evident the landlord took some appropriate actions to address the faults the resident reported. However, it took much longer than it reasonably should have to complete some of the inspections and repairs. None of its responses acknowledged any delays. The resident said that it has not completed the repair to the front door, and there was no direct evidence that shows that it has been. As such we have made an overall finding of maladministration and order the landlord to take steps to put things right. This includes paying compensation that is proportionate to the distress, time, and trouble the resident has been caused, in line with our guidance on remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from her neighbour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. damp in the kitchen, living room, and hallway.
    2. various repairs, including repointing in the loft, a drafty bathroom window, and a seal on the front door.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks it must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders to:
    1. apologise in writing to the resident for the delays in its investigations and repairs.
    2. pay compensation of £250, made up of:
      1. £100 for the distress, time and trouble caused by the delays with some of its damp investigations.
      2. £150 for the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident from some delays with repairs.
    3. provide an action plan for any outstanding investigations or repairs relating to the damp in the living room and hallway, bathroom window, and front door. If these works have been completed, the landlord should provide evidence of this.
  2. Within 6 weeks the landlord must provide evidence that it has completed ASB training to relevant staff, including about logging and recording reports on its system, and completing risk assessments. If, however, the landlord can evidence it provided training within the last 6 months we will accept this.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should follow its ASB policy for any new reports including logging them and completing a risk assessment. We encourage it to use this opportunity to consider creating an action plan explaining if and how any longstanding reports that it or its partner agencies have already investigated will be dealt with.