Norwich City Council (202515338)

Decision
Case ID	202515338
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Norwich City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	22 December 2025

Background

1. The resident has vulnerabilities including mental health, which the landlord is aware of. She complained about how it handled reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from neighbours.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB from neighbours.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord acknowledged a delay in its initial communication about the reported ASB. It apologised and took steps to with its staff to address this. It acted in line with its ASB policy.
6. The landlord responded to the complaint within its complaint policy timescales.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident and reviews moving options.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 June 2025	The resident complained to the landlord that she had reported racially motivated ASB on 27 May 2025. It said its ASB team would follow up but this had not happened. She was seeking a move and compensation.
26 June 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said that following the report it only made one attempt to contact the resident. It acknowledged its failing and apologised. It had since made contact and opened an ASB case. It promised regular updates.
30 June 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said its stage 1 response failed to address her concerns. She was unhappy it had suggested mediation and said it had not contacted her since. It said compensation was not applicable and it failed to address her request to move.
4 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said it could not compensate for historic events. It said mediation was never suggested but agreed it was not suitable in this case. It liaised with police about recent incidents and asked her for evidence to open a new case. It also offered signposting and referrals to victim support services.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she felt the landlord had failed to handle her ASB reports promptly and appropriately. It put the burden of proof on her, and she was living in fear. She wanted an apology, a move to alternative accommodation, or compensation to rent privately.

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 ASB from neighbours
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

7. The resident told us she had been physically attacked by a neighbour in a racially motivated incident in 2020. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlord when events occur or within a reasonable time, usually 12 months. As this was not brought to us at the time we have not considered this further. Based on this and the evidence available, we have focused our investigation on the period leading up to the formal complaint in June 2025 and the related responses. Any reference to previous events is for context only.
8. The resident’s complaint related to racially motivated ASB and she referred to unprofessional practices by the landlord. Allegations of discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. These matters, therefore, fall outside our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns further using equalities legislation. She can also speak to the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance. We can, however, consider how the landlord responded to her concerns.

What we did investigate

9. The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to this case which has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. This indicates a record keeping failure. Our investigation has relied on the available evidence.
10. The resident raised a previous complaint to the landlord about racial ASB in January 2024. We have seen no evidence of further reports until a complaint was submitted on 12 June 2025. It responded in line with its policy, opening a new ASB case. While it is positive it apologised for not contacting her sooner, it failed to address her request for compensation and a move in its response at stage 1. Landlords must ensure all complaint elements are addressed in their responses.
11. The landlord met the resident on 23 June 2025. She was unable to provide dates, times, or evidence of the alleged incidents. She said she had not heard back from the police. It contacted the police who advised the case was closed as she was unhappy with their service and did not require their help. This was a positive step in investigating her reports and liaising with partner agencies.
12. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response confirmed it had complied with its policy. It said it could not pay compensation for historic issues. It signposted the resident to support agencies and offered advice about moving options, something it failed to do in its earlier response. However, it could have provided diary sheets to her in line with its ASB policy, making it easy to keep a record of any further incidents. It also could have discussed using its noise monitoring app.
13. Following the landlords stage 2 complaint response, it asked the resident for updates and again requested evidence. She believed she had provided “extensive” proof, but the landlord was unable to find evidence of this. It explained why evidence was needed and gave her 14 days to provide it. It also filed a hate crime report with the police and completed an ASB risk assessment. Though the timing of the assessment is unclear, it was appropriate given it was aware of her vulnerabilities.
14. Due to insufficient evidence, the landlord closed the case. It is our understanding that there is a high threshold of evidence required to pursue legal action regarding ASB. Without sufficient evidence against an individual it would have been limited in the action it could have taken. It was, therefore, reasonable for it to close the case in the circumstances. She was later temporarily moved due to repair issues. The landlord said its ASB team would contact her prior to returning home to offer further support. Given historic incidents we recommend it provides an action plan show how it will monitor incidents.
15. While we appreciate the situation would likely have been distressing for the resident, the landlord acted in line with its policy. It acknowledged its initial communication failure, apologised, and took reasonable steps to address this with its staff. It also committed to supporting her upon her return to the property. Overall, its approach was reasonable, and we found no failings in its handling of the matter.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	No maladministration

16. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint and stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days. The timescales within the landlord’s complaint policy are in line with the Code.
17. While the landlord initially failed to respond to all points raised in the complaint at stage 1, it put this right at stage 2. It also responded to the complaint at both stages in line with its policy timescales.

Learning

18. Landlords must ensure they respond to all points raised in the complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord’s lack of evidence made it difficult for us to assess the timeline of events. Accurate records must be kept and shared during investigations.

Communication

20. It is positive that the landlord acknowledged its communication failure and took steps to put this right.