Norwich City Council (202329304)

Decision
Case ID	202329304
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Norwich City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	27 May 2026

Background

The resident told us that she had experienced issues of ASB since 2020. In July and August 2023, the resident raised formal complaints with the landlord. In addition to her report of ASB, her complaints covered several issues that she had previously raised with the landlord. The landlord was aware that she experienced anxiety and depression. She has told us that the landlord’s handling of the issues that she raised with it affected her mental health.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of ASB. This includes:
  1. noise nuisance by a neighbour.
  2. the theft of parcels from and the use of drugs in communal areas of her block.
2. A report of an illegally parked horsebox in the communal parking area.
3. A service charge enquiry about window cleaning and gardening services.
4. Her subject access request (SAR)
5. Misgendering in correspondence.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found the landlord to be responsible for:
1. Maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB
2. Service failure in its handling of her report of an illegally parked horsebox.
3. Service failure in responding to a service charge enquiry about window cleaning and gardening services.
4. Service failure in misgendering in correspondence.
5. Maladministration in its complaint handling
Her complaint about a subject access request (SAR) was outside our jurisdiction.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord to did not respond promptly to the resident’s reports of illegal activity within her block. It did not follow through on a suggested interim solution and placed the ownership of this on the resident. While it responded to each of her reports on noise nuisance it considered each of these in isolation without taking steps to escalate action against her neighbour.

An illegally parked horsebox.

There were delays in the landlord acting on the resident’s reports about the horsebox. It also did not keep her informed about the action that it would be taking and the timescales for this. There is a lack of clarity in its responses as to when it resolved the issue.

A service charge enquiry about window cleaning and gardening services.

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reasonable service chare enquiry within an appropriate timeframe allowing 7 months to elapse before it provided its reply.

Her subject access request (SAR)

We have not considered this part of the resident’s complaint as it has already been considered by the ICO. It is outside the jurisdiction of this service.

Misgendering in correspondence

The landlord made an error in addressing the resident in correspondence. When she highlighted this error, it did not reply. It later offered an apology for what it defined as human error, but this was too late to provide a reasonable assurance to the resident that it took care in its correspondence.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling was poor throughout. It did not acknowledge her complaints and respond in a timely manner. It was clearly aware of all the issues that she had raised but did not provide a complete reply until we intervened.

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: The apology is provided by a senior officer. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 24 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows: £150 as offered by the landlord in its stage 1 response. £150 for the failures shown in this report in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB. £75 for the time and trouble caused the resident in pursing her report of the illegally parked horsebox. £75 for her time and trouble in pursuing her service charge enquiry. £50 for the distress caused in its misgendering of her. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the significant delays in its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident, and the landlord is to provide evidence of the payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 24 June 2026
3	Case Review The landlord should compete a review of its complaint handling in this case. It should consider how it could have ensured that it processed each of the resident’s enquiries correctly to ensure that it provided appropriate and timely responses. It is encouraged to share the outcome of its review with the resident. It should share the learning it has taken and improvements to its service implemented since the resident raised her complaint with it. It should provide a copy of its outcome report to the service as evidence of its compliance.	No later than 22 July 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should ensure that it has an appropriate and up to date ASB policy and procedure in place. These should provide clear guidance to its staff and residents of the timescale for responding to reports of ASB and the actions that it will consider.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 July 2023	The resident completed an online form to raise a complaint about a horsebox illegally parked on the estate. Having reported this several months before the landlord had taken no action. She had called to ask the landlord what action it was taking, and it said it had incorrectly filed her report.
7 August 2023	The resident completed a further online complaint form. In this she said: she had sent an enquiry to its leasehold team on 12 July 2023 about property services. she had raised a complaint about a parking issue on 23 July 2023 but received no reply.
11 August 2023	The resident wrote to the landlord in follow up to her earlier complaint. In this she set out a list of issues: On 28 March 2023 she reported parcels going missing from outside her home as the hallway was insecure. She had reported recurrent noise from her upstairs neighbour. Her most recent report was on 17 July 2023, but the landlord had taken no action. On 26 April 2023 she first reported that a horse box parked illegally. She had chased this 3 weeks later, but no action had been taken. On 12 July 2023 she had raised a website enquiry in respect of her service charges, asking how often and when over the last 3 years, the landlord cleaned windows and cut the grass. She had received no reply. On 23 July 2023 she had raised a complaint about the lack of response to her enquiries about illegal parking and service charges. On 7 August 2023 she raised a complaint about the lack of response to her complaints. She was seeking a response to all the issues highlighted. Further she made a subject access request (SAR) of the landlord. She expressed her concern about how it was processing data. She felt that her correspondence had disappeared into a black hole.
11 August 2023	The landlord responded to the resident to say that it had a record of her complaint about the illegally parked horsebox and her earlier report of parcels going missing. It incorrectly addressed the resident in this email. The resident replied directly to the landlord correcting its error and setting out all her complaints. She again chased the landlord for a reply to her complaints on 21 August 2023.
31 August 2023	The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response. This covered her complaint about the horsebox parked in the communal parking area. This recorded that she had complained on 11 August 2023. It said that it had visited the area and seen the horsebox. It would carry out further investigations and issue a notice as the space was for residents who held permits. It apologised for the delay in its reply as her complaint being given to the wrong team. It said it would raise awareness of this error. It included an online link for reporting abandoned vehicles in the future.
31 August 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said that its response had ignored several issues in her complaint. Further, it had also not responded to her SAR. The resident chased the landlord again on 19 September 2023.
2 February 2024	The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. This noted that the resident had complained on 12 January 2024 through us. It said her complaint was about: a failure to escalate her complaint to stage 2. its handling of issues related to parking. not responding to her SAR. lack of response to reports of noise nuisance. lack of response to issues in communal areas. A theft of parcels and the use of drugs. block maintenance matters. misgendering in earlier correspondence. It apologised for the error in its correspondence. It said that this was human error and passed on the apologies of the email’s author. It apologised that it had not responded to all the points raised in her email of 11 August 2023. It had incorrectly attached this to her complaint about the illegally parked horsebox. This was an administrative error. It said that it had amended its process so that each team will receive a copy of complaints that related to their service and respond separately. It had escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process. It would reply by 2 February 2023. It went on to provide a response to the points she had raised. It said it: had resolved the issue of the horsebox. had not responded initially to her SAR. It had done this on 3 January 2024, and the information provided on 11 January 2024. had responded on 20 July 2023 to her report of noise made on 17 July 2023. It did not uphold her complaint about this. was unable to find the service charge query raised on 12 July 2023. was sorry it had not responded to her follow-ups made on 7 and 11 August 2023. provided information about the frequency of grass cutting and window cleaning. This included reductions in service due to COVID-19. It set out a breakdown of these reductions for the financial years from 2020. had met with her about the thefts from the communal area in October 2022. It apologised for the delay in this and passed on its safer neighbourhood coordinators apologies. had scheduled the block for a new door entry system in summer 2024. offered £150 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
5 February 2024	The resident replied, thanking the landlord for its prompt and thorough response. She said she was not satisfied with some of its explanations. She set out the details of these including: that the noise from her upstairs neighbour dated back to early 2020. The noise had started again, and she had reported this in September 2023. The officer dealing with this told her that he could not access historical reports as it had a new contact management system. She felt fobbed off and that the landlord had downplayed the issue of noise nuisance over almost 4 years. It had not responded to a report on 25 October 2023 about illegal parking. She had not received the landlord’s stage 2 response promised for 2 February 2024. The landlord had repeatedly failed to respond to her contact with it. This had left her extremely frustrated. She said that it felt like “screaming into a void as emails were forwarded into a black hole.” The ongoing noise issue and chasing the landlord had impacted on her mental health. She wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 and considered compensation of around £500 would be a “fairer reflection of the toll on her”.
13 February 2024	The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 complaint response to her complaint about the illegally parked horsebox. This thanked her for her complaint raised on 7 August 2023. It confirmed that it had now resolved the issue of the horsebox. It apologised that its stage 1 had not included responses to her complaints about other matters. It noted that it had now responded to these separately. The resident replied directly to the landlord to ask why there had been a delay in its response. She said that it had only resolved the issue of the horsebox because she had pursued this.
23 February 2024	The landlord provided a further stage 2 reply to the resident. It apologised for its administrative error in not passing her emails to the relevant team to respond. It said that it had now concluded its internal complaints process.
12 April 2024	The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 complaint response. It recorded that she had first complained on 5 February 2024 about: Handling of her noise complaint. A lack of response to a report of illegal parking on 25 October 2023. A leasehold enquiry from 12 July 2023. That it had not provided a stage 2 reply promised by 2 February 2024. The landlord set out the action it had taken to investigate her case. It said it: had reviewed its ASB records. It had written to her neighbour on 1 September 2023 and confirmed with the resident on 5 October 2023 that there had been no further incidents. Following confirmation on 24 February 2024 that there had been no further issues, it had closed the case. had visited the estate and could not find the vehicle she had reported. It apologised that it had not fed this back to her. was sorry that it had not provided its earlier stage 2 within the promised timescale. declined her request for compensation of £500. It reoffered the £150 made in its stage 1 response. was sorry for the stress and inconvenience caused. would be reviewing its handling of her complaint to ensure that lessons were learnt from her experience.
15 April 2024	The resident wrote to the landlord expressing her continued dissatisfaction with its response. While the issues had resolved, its handling of her complaint was poor. She had to escalate to us for it to reply.
29 April 2024	The landlord provided a final response to the resident. It said that she could escalate her complaint to us and provided contact details. It updated her on its response to her reports of ASB and asked her to contact it should the issue reoccur. It provided an update on action taken to deal with the abandoned vehicle.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident first contacted us as she had not received a response to her escalated complaint. We wrote to the landlord asking it to act on the resident’s complaint. This prompted the landlord’s response of 2 February 2024. Having received the landlord’s replies the resident asked us to investigate her complaint.

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.

What we did not consider

The resident has told us that that the issues with her neighbour and her need to repeatedly chase the landlord for a reply to the queries she raised have affected her health. We are unable to draw conclusions on liability in such circumstances. These are better addressed by way of the courts or through the landlord’s insurer. We have considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord

Complaint	Reports of ASB including noise from her neighbour and ASB in the communal areas.
Finding	Maladministration

Noise nuisance

The evidence provided shows that the resident was reporting issues with her upstairs neighbour from late 2020. Her reports were in the main about loud music played over extended periods by her neighbour. The landlord has presented evidence that it responded to the resident’s reports and took steps to address the issue with her neighbour. Following her reports the landlord opened a case file on its ASB system. Its records show that these were open for around a couple of months and closed on confirmation with the resident that the noise had stopped. It would then open a new case when it received a further report.
There are regular reports from the resident of ASB from her neighbour throughout 2021, 2022 and 2023. The landlord asked the resident to provide recordings through the noise app which she did. It took steps to contact her neighbour to discuss her reports but there is no evidence that it considered other means of resolution such as the use of acceptable behaviour contracts or mediation.
On 20 July 2023 she made a new report of loud music from her neighbour. The landlord asked her to use the noise app and said this would be dealt with by its response officer. There is evidence of ongoing contact between the resident and the landlord through August 2023. The landlord wrote to her neighbour on 1 September 2023 and agreed an action plan with her. On her confirmation that there had been no further incidents it closed the case on 6 October 2023.
The landlord acted appropriately in responding to each of her reports of ASB. However, it appears to have treated each of her reports in isolation rather than as a continuation of the same issue. Given the recurring nature of these, it would have been appropriate for it to have consider escalated action as the incidents reoccurred. That it did not do so was a failure in its handling of the issue.
We note that the ASB policy provided by the landlord was dated March 2015 and marked as under review. We would encourage the landlord to ensure that it has an up to date policy and procedure in place.

Theft of parcels from and the use of drugs in communal areas of her block.

The resident reported non-residents accessing the communal area of the building to use illegal drugs. She first reported this on 17 July 2021 and made a further report on 2 May 2022. On 7 October 2022 the landlord met with the resident to discuss her concerns. It proposed an interim solution of fitting a keypad to restrict access to the area. It explained this option to the resident and asked her to gain the agreement of her neighbours as its officers “did not have the capacity to gather consensus”. This was inappropriate. The landlord has a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of its buildings. Having presented a possible solution, it would have been reasonable for it to have taken steps to communicated with the resident and her neighbours about the security options it could provide.
On 28 March 2023 she reported having parcels stolen from outside of her flat. She said that she had reported this to the police, but she wanted the landlord to instal a secure entrance system. The landlord has provided no evidence that it responded to this report from the resident outside of its complaint response to her in February 2024. In line with its ASB policy it should have contacted the resident to discuss her report and engaged directly with the police over the issue. This would also have been an opportunity to further discuss the interim measure presented in October 2022 and reengage with the resident and her neighbours on this. Through its complaint response it said that it would install a door entry system in summer 2024. The resident has confirmed that this is now in place.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of these issues was poor. It took little ownership for the security issues highlighted by the resident and did not act. We consider that the combined failures amount to maladministration in its handling of the resident reports of ASB. We have recommended it to review its handling of the issues in this case. We have further ordered compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint	A report of an illegally parked horsebox in the communal parking area
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s records show that it first received a report from the resident about the horsebox on 16 January 2023. It passed this to its estate management team on 7 June 2023. There is no evidence as to the reason for this delay or that it communicated with the resident during this time.
The landlord’s ASB policy includes a section about abandoned vehicles. This says that it will act on the day that it receives a report of an abandoned vehicle to check if the vehicle has valid tax and MOT. It will ensure that it has inspected the vehicle by the end of the next working day and make further checks to identify the owner. If it is found to be abandoned, it will serve a notice and remove the vehicle. There is no evidence that the landlord followed its own policy in respect of the resident’s reports.
The resident complained that the horsebox remained on 23 July 2023. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 31 August 2023, 28 working days after she raised her complaint. This set out the action it had taken and the next steps. It apologised for the delay in its response. This it said was due to it referring the matter incorrectly to its estate team. While it said that it would raise this error it presented no clear learning or actions that it would take to ensure that enquiries were correctly allocated in the future.
The landlord acted to start its abandoned vehicle process on 1 September 2023, 7 months after the resident’s first report. It has provided no records of the actions it took or when the vehicle was removed. Further it has provided no records of its correspondence with the resident about this issue through this period other than its complaint responses. On 2 February 2024 it said that the issue of horsebox had been resolved.
There was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of this issue and the resident’s later report of illegal parking. It did not act on her first report of the issue. The resident needed to raise a formal complaint for it to act. It did not keep the resident informed of the action it was taking and left her having to pursue the issue through its complaints process. This was a source of frustration for the resident, and she spent significant time pursuing her enquires with the landlord. We have made an order, in line with our compensation guidance for the landlord to pay the resident £75 in recognition of the time and trouble taken by her to bring this matter to the landlord’s attention.

Complaint	A service charge enquiry about window cleaning and gardening services.
Finding	Service failure

The resident raised an enquiry about the frequency of window cleaning and gardening services for her block on 12 July 2023. The resident confirmed to the landlord that she received an automated acknowledgement of her enquiry at the time. The landlord provided no response to the resident’s enquiry until it completed its stage 1 complaint response on 2 February 2024, 6 months after she raised her enquiry. This significant delay in responding was unreasonable and was a service failure.
In its complaint response it said that it was unable to find her enquiry and recorded that it believed that it had misfiled it. In the evidence provided to us it has recorded that it had logged this enquiry as a complaint.
Its response set out the detail of the frequency of the services provided and further information about reduction to the service and charges. While it was positive that it provided a full response it was a significant failure that the resident had to wait so long for it to do so and in the interim had to pursue the landlord for a reply.
The landlord has not shown that it has robust processes in place for dealing with enquiries submitted through its central contact email. Throughout its correspondence with the resident it has noted and apologised for errors in its handling of her enquiries but has not presented the action it will take to improve its services in the future. We have made an order for the landlord to review how it receives and distributes correspondence. This is particularly key where residents are raising service enquires or reporting serious issues relating to the security of their homes. We have also made a further award of compensation to the resident in line with our compensation guidance.

Complaint	Subject Access Request (SAR)
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident made a SAR on the 11 August 2023 for the landlord to share correspondence with her. She complained to the Information Commissioner’s Officer on 8 October 2023, and it investigated her complaint. It ordered the landlord on 21 December 2023 to provide the information requested within 14 calendar days.
We do not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. In this case the ICO has already investigated the landlord’s response to the resident’s SAR. It made an order and the landlord provided the data requested. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate the complaint about the landlord’s response to her SAR.

Complaint	Misgendering in her correspondence
Finding	Service failure

The resident corresponded with the landlord on 11 August 2023 recording the issues about which she had complained. The landlord wrote to the resident to say that it had only 2 items recorded as complaints. In its email it addressed the resident as Mr. The resident responded setting out the issues included within her complaint and confirmed the incorrect title used. She asked the landlord to correct this in future correspondence.
The resident was frustrated in having to restate the scope of her complaints. Further the inaccuracy in the landlord’s reply addressing her as male rather than female showed a lack of attention to detail and was a source of annoyance to her.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 2 February 2024. This offered an apology from the email’s author for what it described as human error. It did not, however, give an explanation as to why it had not apologised when the resident highlighted the error. This was a service failure by the landlord with the apology only made over 5 months after she first brought the error to its attention. We have ordered the landlord to issue a further apology to the resident and pay her £50 compensation for the distress caused. This is in line with our compensation guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. This includes that landlords will:
1. respond to complaints and complaint escalations within a reasonable time.
2. respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
3. offer appropriate remedies to resolve the complaint.
The landlord’s corporate complaint policy, found on its website, sets out the timeframes for responding to complaints. It is to reply in 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It also says that it will acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days of being made.
The resident raised her complaint about the horsebox on 23 July 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. The landlord responded at stage 1 to this singular issue on 31 August 2023. It provided a stage 2 reply about the horsebox on 13 February 2024. A total of 143 days after she first raised a complaint and year since she first reported the issue. There was a significant failure in the landlord’s handling of this element of her complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 and 11 August 2023 highlighting the lack of response to her first complaint and raising further issues that were outstanding. Its records show that it recorded these contacts as a complaint. There is no evidence that it acknowledged these or provided a substantive response to these issues until our intervention in January 2024. The landlord had the opportunity to include these issues within its response on 31 August 2023. Further she had separately raised her service charge enquiry with its leasehold team at an earlier date, and it did not respond.
Having provided a stage 1 response on 2 February 2024 it said that it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. It said it would provide this response on 2 February 2024. It provided its full stage 2 response on 12 April 2024, 49 days later than it said it would and 7 months after she her escalation request.
There is no evidence on which we can conclude these delays were reasonable or unavoidable, or that the landlord told the resident about the delay. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or our expectations.
The resident was put to significant time and trouble to pursue responses from the landlord about the issues within her complaint. The landlord said that it had put processes in place to ensure that issues were raised with the correct team to provide a response. Despite these the resident’s complaints were not responded to for an extended period leading to her belief that the issues had been lost. This has caused a breakdown of her trust in the landlord, and her feeling that it is not listening to residents despite seeking out their feedback.
The extent of the delays experienced by the resident were unreasonable and amount to maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling. We note that the landlord offered the resident an amount of £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused to her. We have made a further award of £100 for the time and trouble she faced in pursuing a reply to her complaint. We have also made an order for the landlord to review its complaint handling in this case and inform the resident of the steps it has and will take to improve its complaint handling.

Learning

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s communication with it and her complaint was poor throughout. There were failures in its allocation of enquiries to ensure that it passed these to the appropriate team. Much of the resident’s contact went unanswered. The landlord may take learning from this complaint in considering how it progresses and allocates contact from its residents through its enquiry system.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

There were accepted failures in the landlord’s record keeping. It should assess its internal recording procedures against the recommendations of our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. It should also review its staff training to ensure its staff understand the importance of keeping accurate and comprehensive records.

Communication

We have found the landlord’s communication to be lacking. Effective communication builds trust between landlord and tenant and shows that the resident is being listened to.