North West Leicestershire District Council — case 202415395

Decision Case ID 202415395 Decision type Investigation Landlord North West Leicestershire District Council Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 19 December 2025 Background The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat. She has been represented by her daughter who communicated with the landlord about reports of noise, littering and swearing from her neighbour who lived above her. They both expressed concern that this amounted to antisocial behaviour (ASB) and were unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found: Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Response to the resident’s reports of ASB The landlord failed to fully follow its ASB policy and create an action plan.

It also delayed in utilising various tools to gather evidence in order to support its actions. The handling of the complaint The landlord delayed in providing its stage 2 response. It also did not complete a thorough investigation of its handling of the issue by considering whether it followed its ASB policy. As a result, it did not identify key failings. 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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.

It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 23 January 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 23 January 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations The landlord should review our decision and assess whether it needs to provide relevant staff with refresher training in relation to its ASB policy. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened July 2023 to May 2024 The resident and her representative made several reports of ASB from the neighbour who lived above her. Throughout this period, she reported they were: making noise at unsociable hours, littering by throwing cigarette butts out of their window, appearing at her window in an intimidating way, smoking a lot and was concerned about the associated fire risk.

The landlord spoke to the neighbour about these reports several times. May 2024 The resident suffered a stroke. 25 May 2024 The representative emailed the landlord with several concerns which the landlord treated as a formal complaint. She said: There were errors within the support plan. The resident was prepared to have noise monitoring equipment (NME) in the home. She had also installed a camera doorbell towards the area with littering. The resident was trying to recover from a stroke while the neighbour was causing noise nuisance between 1am and 3.

30am. She was told the police were instructed to take the neighbour’s actions more seriously. The landlord had failed to take action in a timely manner and felt the neighbour was a danger to themselves and others. The support worker was not qualified to deal with complex cases, and it was not appropriate for the landlord to appoint a female support officer, given the neighbour’s previous behaviour. The landlord had failed to safeguard her mother. There had been a lack of communication, she wanted an urgent ASB review and had contacted the fire service about her concerns.

10 June 2024 The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It: Accepted and apologised there were errors in the support plan which it corrected. Had engaged a security company to patrol the building and an inspection by fire and rescue with another scheduled. Made the police aware of the situation and the police had chosen to increase its presence. Listed the actions it took to deal with the ASB, including collaborative meetings, referrals to adult social care and security patrols.

Planned to contact her about installing of NME. It said there was a waiting list, but it intended to purchase more. Did not advise installing a camera doorbell instead it would allow it as a temporary measure adding a caution about recording residents. Could not share details but confirmed it had taken steps based on the common approach, good practice and its legal powers within the tenancy agreement. But there were important factors it had to consider before it could potentially make a tenant homeless.

Stated the importance of gathering evidence and taking proportionate action which may not always result in enforcement action. Reassured her its staff were suitably qualified for the job. Would support an ASB case review, implementing actions and learnings promptly. 10 June 2024 The resident’s representative asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She said the stage 1 response showed a “total lack of regard” towards the resident and was concerned that she was at risk of harm as a result.

11 June 2024 The landlord commenced enforcement action. July 2024 The neighbour left the property but maintained the tenancy. 16 July 2024 The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It explained it had not upheld the complaint and its stage 1 response had addressed all points clearly and found no fault with its staff. It understood the resident’s and representative’s frustration with the perceived lack of progress. However, while it could not disclose much detail: it was working hard with other partner agencies and professionals to reach a satisfactory resolution.

The ASB case review was scheduled for 12 September 2024. it was reliant on external parties to review actions, risk assessments of residents and sufficient evidence to warrant further action. Referral to the Ombudsman The representative referred the complaint to us. She expressed concerns about the landlord’s handling of matter and felt the ASB had contributed to the resident’s stroke. She also considers that it has been “negligent” in its approach, and that it should evict the neighbour.

July 2025 The landlord terminated the neighbour’s tenancy. 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 The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB Finding Maladministration The landlord’s ASB policy outlines that initial reports will be recorded under 3 different categories.

All involve contact from the investigating officer to agree an action plan which will then be actioned with set timelines for each category. The lowest category risk within 10 working days, medium category risk within 5 working days and the highest within 24 hours. The landlord’s case notes show that reports of ASB were made in July 2023. There is no further information about this. Therefore, we do not know whether the landlord responded in line with its ASB policy to categorise the reports and create an action plan.

Information about the steps that had been taken should have been accurately recorded. As it was not, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it responded to the reports appropriately. The resident reported ASB on 6 occasions between October 2023 to December 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord spoke to the neighbour about noise twice in October 2023. However, we cannot see that it agreed an action plan with the resident or appropriately responded in line with its policy.

This was a departure from its policy. A later ASB case review confirmed that it had failed to log the reports appropriately. This impacted its ability to address and respond to the reports. It was appropriate for it to recognise the impact of this failing. The landlord appropriately held a Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meeting on 7 December 2023. This demonstrated it was taking the reports seriously, despite the initial failure to appropriately log reports. Its agreed actions included meeting with the neighbour to discuss the complaints on 12 December 2023.

However, there is no corroborating evidence to support what happened when it met the neighbour. There is also no evidence to show that the resident was kept updated with events during this time which was a failing. On 17 January 2024, the landlord completed a risk assessment for the resident. It was appropriate for it to do so, however it is not clear why it did not complete this sooner given the reports of ASB began in July 2023. The landlord should have completed a risk assessment on receipt of the resident’s earlier reports.

It was a failing that it did not. Given her vulnerabilities it should have been prioritised. Not only was this a departure from the policy, but the landlord also missed a vital opportunity to assess how it could have supported the resident at the earliest point. In its ASB case review, it also identified that it failed to do a safeguarding referral at an earliest stage. The landlord appropriately set a follow up multi-agency meeting (MAM) on 18 January 2024. However, the lack of action plan in place meant the resident was left without clear information as to what the landlord planned to do.

It therefore failed to manage her expectations appropriately. At the MAM meeting on 18 January 2024, the landlord considered adopting an incremental ASB approach. It appropriately delivered a letter to the neighbour on 25 January 2024 and talked to them about the reports of noise related ASB. The landlord spoke to the neighbour about his smoking on 15 February 2024 and 21 February 2024. It also arranged a joint visit from the community safety educator from fire and rescue. Given the concerns about fire hazards from smoking, it was appropriate for it to involve the fire service.

This demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. However, it is unclear if this visit went ahead as scheduled or whether it updated the resident. However, we have seen that a joint visit with the fire service took place on 3 April 2024. During March 2024, the evidence confirmed the landlord was considering the options available to it, including looking at the neighbour’s tenancy conditions as the ASB was escalating. It appropriately executed the next step in its incremental ASB approach by sending the neighbour a letter on 19 March 2024.

The landlord held another meeting on 27 March 2024 as another report of ASB was made. It was a sufficiently serious event as the representative called the police. It noted that the letter was the final stage before it would look at enforcement action, but that it would need to consider a number of factors before doing so. Another MAM meeting was arranged for 18 April 2024, however there is no evidence to suggest the resident was kept updated about actions the landlord was considering.

Around the end of April 2024, the resident started reporting ASB through the ASB app. The ASB case review noted that the landlord had decided that there was already a good means of managing communication and recording evidence which is why it was not using the ASB app. However, it should have reasonably informed and offered the resident this method of reporting ASB, much sooner than it did. It should have also explained why it felt it was not necessary to use it. By not doing so it missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it was being open and transparent in the process.

This was particularly relevant as one of the resident’s concerns was that the landlord was slow to take action. The representative advised that she was repeatedly told that it could not do much without evidence and that it did not have enough evidence to warrant action. Therefore, the landlord should have considered the use of the ASB app at a much earlier stage in its efforts to gather evidence. A further MAM meeting was held to discuss the neighbour on 18 April 2024. While no specific actions were set, the landlord missed an opportunity to keep the resident updated and assure her it was taking her concerns seriously.

The landlord had decided to issue a letter to the neighbour on 19 May 2024 and another letter about noise complaints on 24 May 2024. These were important developments which the landlord could have reasonably updated the resident with to show it was taking appropriate steps in line with its incremental ASB approach. The evidence suggests that the landlord spoke to the representative about installing and using NME on or around 24 May 2024. It is unclear why this was not offered sooner or at the very least discussed sooner, given the reports of noise ASB started almost 10 months prior.

The representative also raised concerns about certain members of staff. At stage 2 the landlord said it was satisfied its staff were suitably qualified for the role which was reasonable for it to explain. Overall, the landlord positively: Spoke to the neighbour on numerous occasions to discuss the reports with them. Issued letters to them in line with its incremental ASB approach. Held numerous multi disciplinary and agency meetings to discuss the reported ASB including joint action group referrals.

Organised a joint visit with the fire service to discuss fire safety concerns. Organised security patrols to gather evidence of ASB in May and June 2024. Commenced enforcement action in June 2024. Explained in its stage 1 response that before it could recover possession of a property, there was a process to follow whereby needed to gather quality evidence. Completed an ASB case review where it identified failings after the complaint process ended. However, the landlord: Did not complete a timely action plan in accordance with its ASB policy.

Failed to officially log reports of ASB in the initial months. Delayed in using the ASB app. Delayed in using NME to record noise nuisance. Delayed in completing a safeguarding referral. Failed to update the resident and her representative with key actions it was taking. The resident and her representative said they felt the landlord had done “nothing”. The lack of a clear action plan and intention to keep them update undoubted impacted this feeling. While we appreciate the landlord could not reveal a lot of details due to data protection reasons, it failed to adequately manage expectations about communication and updates.

This understandably left the resident feeling it was doing very little and not taking her concerns seriously. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the failings identified, we order the landlord to pay her £400 compensation. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance and also takes into account her vulnerabilities and the delays involved with evidence gathering. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Maladministration The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints.

The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint, the escalation request and responded at stage 1 in terms of timescales. At stage 2 it took 26 working days to provide it stage 2 response. However, it appropriately wrote to the representative on 25 June 2024 to state that it would need another 10 days. The landlord’s escalation acknowledgement however stated that it would respond in 10 working days, rather than the 20 working days outlined in the Code and its own complaints policy.

It is unclear whether this was an error, but it raised an expectation that the stage 2 response would be provided sooner and caused the representative time and trouble chasing the landlord on the resident’s behalf. However, the delay in providing the stage 2 response was minimal and there is no evidence that the small delay caused a significant detriment. The landlord’s position in the complaint responses was that it had not identified any failings. However, its investigation into the handling of the issues was not thorough.

This was because it later identified through the ASB case review that there were areas where it should have responded better. Furthermore, our investigation into the matter has highlighted that it failed follow its ASB policy by not creating an action plan in a timely manner with the resident. As set out in the Code, landlords must reference relevant policy to address the points raised. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we order the landlord to pay £100 compensation for the above failings.

Learning It is positive that the landlord acknowledged the importance of maintaining accurate records as noted with the support plan containing errors. It is also positive that a later ASB case review revealed other areas which the landlord has committed to improving included safeguarding training. It should consider whether it could extend this to include refresher training about its ASB policy. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The record keeping in this case has been impacted by the initial failure to log the ASB reports appropriately.

It should also consider whether it is adequately recording what updates it provides residents as there was very little evidence to support this in this case. Communication We appreciate the landlord was limited in what information it could share with the resident about the action it was considering and had taken. However, it should consider reviewing how it can improve its approach in order to manage resident expectations better to balance this with its data protection obligations.