West Northamptonshire Council (202416986)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416986

West Northamptonshire Council

12 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Transfer application.
2. Reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB).

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 1 bedroom property in a block with her 2 children. The landlord is a local authority who provide social housing. For a time, the landlord delegated its power to its Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO) to decide housing transfer issues.
There has been a history of ASB reports between the resident and her neighbours. Both reported concerns to the landlord about one another. The resident also raised concerns with the landlord about hers and her family’s safety following an ASB incident with her neighbour. As well as concerns about their welfare due to ASB and with overcrowding in the property. This saw the landlord make referrals for support on behalf of the resident.
The resident’s housing officer at the time completed a welfare statement and housing application on her behalf on 3 May 2023. The resident then raised ASB concerns with the landlord on 20 May 2023 about an assault by her neighbour and her child. She explained she provided the police with footage of the assault and abuse after her neighbour reported a very different allegation to them. She said this was why she reported a move and why it should not take 6 months to move her and prevent further issues.
The resident raised concerns with her MP about the delay in her housing application on 29 September 2023. Her MP responded on 24 November 2023 and explained that her landlord said that:
1. Despite several requests for information, she did not provide it, and it cancelled her application on 30 August 2023.
2. To ensure it dealt with the matter quickly, her housing officer contacted her and scheduled an appointment for 29 November 2023. This was to aid in completing another housing application form and obtain all relevant documentation needed to satisfy the allocations verification criteria.
3. It had shared a supporting letter from an organisation that she provided to the housing officer and asked that they consider submitting a welfare report if they were satisfied that suitable grounds existed to do so.
4. Once they submitted the application along with all necessary information, then it had asked that it speed up the assessment and provide the resident with an update on her banding.
5. It apologised that it could not to be of more assistance on this occasion but trusted this clarified the situation.
The issue remained outstanding and on 12 April 2024 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction to the landlord. She asked to view its policies and procedures.
The resident also raised similar concerns on 16 April 2024 in her formal complaint form, and included concerns about her children’s treatment, the impact of the situation and living arrangements on their health and issues of ASB. She said she had filed the necessary documents.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 2 May 2024. It explained:
1. It assessed her housing application in August 2023, but after not receiving enough supporting information, it cancelled the application. The missing supporting information related to identity verification documents, and supporting medical information.
2. At the time of the application she was in rent arrears which would have prevented her from being eligible to bid for alternate properties if she was permitted to join the housing register.
3. The local authority had taken over the allocation of properties from 1 April 2024. If she wished to reapply to join the housing register, she needed to apply directly to them, but they had currently paused the process.
4. She had referenced several potential ASB issues at the property and indicated that she may have some unmet support needed. With that in mind, it would ask her current housing officer to contact her to arrange a visit at her home to discuss the reported ASB and support needs with a view of making a referral to its tenancy compliance and support teams subject to her agreement. It encouraged her to report any serious incidents of crime to the police who could also assist in ensuring her safety.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint on the same day. She said since her application, she had sent hard copies and various other communication to her housing officer, including emails. She raised the impact of the situation on her child, and reiterated her concerns of ASB, saying her neighbour committed a public order offence and physically assaulted her child in public.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 May 2024. It explained the historical context around her application, and the actions it had taken around supporting the resident. It:
1. Apologised for the distress caused to her by not allowing her application for rehousing to go ahead.
2. Accepted that her original housing officer submitting screenshots of required documents on her behalf would have had the effect of her believing it had suitably dealt with the matter. This was however not the case as it only accepted original documents for verification.
3. Despite this, it was unable to uphold her complaint as there was clear evidence that it told her what she needed to provide, to progress her original housing application and she did not supply the requested documentation.
The resident contacted us between September 2024 and May 2025. She explained her concerns to us and the outcomes she sought were:
1. A move on a priority basis due to all the supporting evidence she provided the landlord from various organisations.
2. Compensation for the stress and poor handling of the whole process.
3. All arrears waved on her account.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said she would like the landlord to rehouse her to resolve her complaint. She also said she would like it to waive all arrears on her account. It is not within the Housing Ombudsman’s power to determine whether a landlord should rehouse a person. Nor can we tell a landlord to waive all arrears on a resident’s account.
The resident also raised concerns about the impact of the situation on both hers and her family’s health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord’s actions have had an effect on a person’s health and wellbeing. These are matters that require expert consideration and the courts are able to consider and decide on such issues. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on these matters.
The resident raised concerns with us in June 2025 about her discretionary housing payments. She also raised new ASB concerns. This did not form part of the original complaint she raised with the landlord, and there is no evidence it has completed the landlord’s complaints process. Our scheme says we may not consider complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. As such we shall not consider this issue within this investigation.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is known as the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme governs the complaints which we can consider. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing transfer application is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42.j. of the scheme says that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
We understand that the ALMO dealt with the resident’s rehousing requests. The ALMO was acting on behalf of the local authority, carrying out its decision making power with regard to handling a housing application. Local authorities have a statutory duty to consider every application for allocation under their allocation policy. This is not in connection with its housing activities so far as they relate to the provision or management of social housing and therefore are not matters for the Housing Ombudsman.
These are matters which fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to any person. It says ASB can include criminal behaviour, physical violence, verbal abuse, harassment, and intimidation. It says:
1. It takes all reported incidents of ASB seriously and takes a victim centred approach to ensure that support is available and offered. It would tailor make the support for the person’s needs.
2. For all community or personal related reports of ASB, it would undertake a risk assessment with the reporter upon the first report of ASB which it would review depending upon the level of risk, or if there is a significant change in circumstances.
3. It will complete an action plan with the reporter which it will review with the reporter every 3 months with a minimum of fortnightly contact. It would also agree the type and frequency of contact the reporter wants from the person investigating the ASB report.
4. In exceptional circumstances it will offer temporary accommodation or a management transfer to the victim of serious ASB. This would normally mean where there is a credible threat of life or serious health and safety risk.
5. It will thoroughly investigate reports of ASB and discuss with residents the potential available options and choose the most effective.
6. In determining the most appropriate course of action it will have due regard to the Equalities Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998.
The resident raised issues of ASB with the landlord between May 2023 and April 2024. She said that her neighbour assaulted her child outside her front door on 20 May 2023. The landlord explained to us that other neighbours also informed the housing officer of the incident. The landlord was provided with differing versions of the event. It was also aware that the police attended and took no further action. Based on this it decided not to raise a referral to its ASB team. This was inappropriate, and not in keeping with its policy.
This is because it did not investigate the resident’s concerns. Whilst appropriate that it spoke with the police about their investigations, the actions required by the landlord’s policy were for it to carry out its own investigation to reach a decision. This was important because the police work to a higher standard of proof than the landlord, and the landlord can potentially take actions the police cannot around such issues.
The resident then raised concerns again in July 2023 about a recent common assault recorded by the police. It is unclear if this was the assault reported on 20 May 2023 or a different assault. A support letter on behalf of the resident also raised concerns with a public order offence on 19 September 2023 by the neighbour against the resident’s child. However, we cannot see that the resident reported this to the landlord at the time.
The evidence the landlord provided shows that it took some action on 15 July 2023. It contacted the police to substantiate whether there was a risk of harm to the resident and her family or threat to their lives. It is however unclear if this was in relation to the resident’s housing transfer application, consideration of a managed move, or ASB investigation.
The landlord said on 9 May 2024 that it had dealt with concerns she raised in 2023. Although it spoke with the police, it has not shown that it conducted its own independent investigations. It would have been reasonable for it to do so to identify whether it needed to take any independent action such as tenancy enforcement measures.
We would expect a landlord to have robust records of a resident’s reports and show the actions it took to substantiate the reports. Even if it did not open an ASB investigation, we would expect to see that it had recorded the report. The landlord has not shown that it did so and this was unreasonable.
In the landlord’s response to the resident’s MP in September 2023, it said that on 19 July 2023, her housing officer spoke with the police due to the resident’s concerns and the potential risk posed to the family. The police confirmed to the housing officer on 19 July 2023 that there was no risk of a threat to the resident’s life. Within her complaint in April 2024, the resident raised concerns about ASB again and said her family could not go out for their own safety, and it was aware of the assault on her child on their doorstep and she asked why it did not investigate this. She raised several issues about the behaviour of individuals from her street including harassing, scaring, violently attacking her, trying to follow her child to school and other places.
From the information provided, we have seen no evidence that the landlord raised an ASB case or that it risk assessed or identified an action plan in relation to the concerns raised by the resident promptly. This was inappropriate and not in keeping with its ASB policy.
The landlord visited the resident on 2 May 2024 after she raised her complaint, and also her neighbour raising an ASB complaint about her and her family. During this visit it said that she had never reported her concerns. However, the evidence suggests otherwise. This also contradicts the landlord’s position a few days later, on 9 May 2024 where it said that it had dealt with the concerns she raised in 2023. While it attended the resident’s property in response to her neighbour’s complaints and listened to her account, in line with its policy, there is no evidence that it took steps to substantiate her version of events. For example, during its visit to the resident on 2 May 2024, she reported that she had not attacked the neighbour as alleged, but the other way round. However, there is no indication that her claim was investigated further.
The resident’s teenage child also told it that the resident’s neighbours had hurt them. We would have expected the landlord to try to substantiate any such report and act in line with its ASB policy, to determine if there was a need for safeguarding. It has not shown that it did, and this was inappropriate.
The landlord did however appropriately tell the resident during the visit on 2 May 2024 to contact it if she wanted to report her concerns. She told it she would rather contact the police. Following this, on the same day, she contacted it again raising concerns with ASB, and it told her the following day she needed to raise it with the appropriate team. We would usually expect a landlord to raise such an issue on behalf of the resident. However, she had expressly said she did not want to raise an ASB case with the landlord and as such we consider its actions reasonable.
From 2 May 2024, the landlord appropriately looked to work jointly with the police to try to resolve the issues between the resident and her neighbours despite her not wanting it to open a case. This was appropriate, in line with its policy around taking a joined up approach with the police, and showed a focus on resolving the issue, as it had started to investigate her concerns. It also provided the resident with practical advice on dealing with the situation. It told her not to communicate with her neighbour and have as little contact with them as possible.
The resident however continued to raise concerns about her neighbour with the landlord. We acknowledge that she had told the landlord on 2 May 2024, that she would rather contact the police, however as she continued to raise concerns, it would have been proportionate for the landlord to query whether she wanted it to raise an ASB case.
In summary, prior to the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not show that it fully acted in line with its ASB policy in its handling of the resident’s ASB complaint between 20 May 2023 and 2 May 2024. It contradicted itself on 2 May 2024 as it said she never raised her concerns previously, but a few days later on 9 May 2024, confirmed it had dealt with her concerns in 2023. We have also seen no records to show that it logged her reports, raising concerns with its record keeping. Based on this we find that there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application is outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s Jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with an apology.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £200 around its handling of the resident’s ASB concerns.
3. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.