Oxford City Council — case 202512026

Decision Case ID 202512026 Decision type Investigation Landlord Oxford City Council Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Shared Ownership Date 27 March 2026 Background The resident lives on an estate made up of 3 separate blocks. She lives in block 1 along with other shared owners. She complained that residents of blocks 2 and 3 are consistently engaged in antisocial behaviour (ASB) related to drugs, intimidating behaviour, and noise nuisance. She reported that non-residents trespassed within the estate and in her block.

She considers the landlord has failed to take suitable action to address any of the ASB she reported. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We found: Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports was mostly good and in line with its ASB policy. It took appropriate enforcement actions and meaningfully liaised with police to apply a multi-agency approach to the resident’s reports. However, it failed on some occasions to complete risk assessments promptly or update the resident. It also failed to acknowledge or address the resident’s September 2025 ASB report.

The landlord’s complaint handling The landlord addressed the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the timescales set out in its policy. There was an 87 working day delay in its stage 2 complaint handling. However, it has already offered a proportionate sum of compensation to put this right. 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 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300, made up of: the £200 previously offered for its delayed complaint response £100 for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. No later than 24 April 2026 2 ASB order The landlord must: provide the resident with timescales for the installation of CCTV update her on any progress made during its partnership working with police in relation to drug dealing and drug use on the estate address any current concerns she has about ASB and set out an action plan as to how it will address this in accordance with its policy The landlord must the above to us and the resident in writing by the due date.

No later than 24 April 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 30 May 2025 The resident complained that the landlord had failed to suitably address her reports of ASB for the past 2 years. 3 June 2025 The resident asked the landlord to either: investigate her complaint on behalf of all shared owners on the estate, or include her neighbour as a joint complainant, or raise another complaint on her neighbour’s behalf 6 and 9 June 2025 The landlord advised the resident that: she could make a group complaint but would have to provide explicit consent from all parties she could complain on her neighbour’s behalf, but this would only cover issues impacting her specifically and it still required explicit consent 17 June 2025 The landlord issued a stage 1 response.

It explained it had taken a range of actions to address the resident’s ASB reports throughout 2023. It also summarised further actions taken to address her 2025 reports. It ultimately found it had handled all ASB reports in line with its policy. However, it agreed to: coordinate a joint meeting with the resident and the police arrange for the installation of permanent CCTV 24 June 2025 The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She complained it had failed to progress her requested meeting with the police or explain why it did not complete another risk assessment sooner.

21 November 2025 The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It summarised actions taken in 2023 and 2025 to address the resident’s ASB reports. It also committed to installing CCTV and updating the resident on the progress of outcomes agreed at the August 2025 meeting with the police. It found it had addressed her reports as per its ASB policy. However, the landlord acknowledged stage 2 complaint handling delays. It offered the resident £200 for this and for its lack of communication to explain the delay.

Referral to the Ombudsman The resident advised us that she remains unsatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. She considers it has failed to implement a formal plan to address the issues or install permanent CCTV as promised. She wants the landlord to provide compensation, an apology, and to address the ASB. 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 How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB Finding Service failure What we have not investigated Our Scheme sets out that we may not consider matters which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable timeframe, typically 12 months. The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports from 2023 onwards.

She also advises that she made repeated attempts to raise a formal complaint in 2023, but that the landlord failed to issue a complaint response until 2025. We can see the resident asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint on 20 and 25 July 2023. The landlord responded on 28 July 2023, included a link to its online complaints portal, and invited her to raise a complaint. She did not do so. She then raised a formal complaint on 30 May 2025. Therefore, this investigation has only considered the landlord’s actions from 30 May 2024 until its final response.

We have also considered its actions following this insofar as they relate to commitments made at stage 2. What we have investigated The landlord’s ASB policy explains it will take the following initial steps following reports: Contact complainants within 3 working days of reports related to criminal activity, intimidation or threatening behaviour. Contact complainants within 5 working days of reports related to noise or verbal abuse. Complete a risk assessment at initial contact and explain to the complainant how to gather evidence.

The case manager responsible for the case will then: Investigate by gathering evidence from other parties like neighbours or police and analyse this. Inform person(s) causing ASB of allegations. Issue warning of enforcement action to alter behaviour. If the behaviour continues further evidence will be required from the complainant which for additional enforcement. If there is insufficient evidence to proceed the landlord will close the case but reopen it if additional evidence comes to light within 1 month.

The landlord can consider the following escalatory enforcement actions depending on the evidence available: Acceptable Behaviour Agreement (ABA) setting out a voluntary contract between the alleged perpetrator and the landlord to alter their behaviour. Community Protection Warning (CPW) to refrain from the alleged ASB. This warning typically expires after a year. Community Protection Notice (CPN). This is issued if evidence of continued ASB is provided to the landlord following issuing a CPW.

This is a legal notice which can lead to a fine or criminal prosecution if breached. It will typically remain in place for 2 years. Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO). This is issued by a court if a person convicted of an offence causes harassment, alarm, and distress when there is sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt. On 1 October 2024 the resident reported that rough sleepers and residents of blocks 2 and 3 were accessing block 1 to use drugs. She also advised that they had acted aggressively when approached, and that she had reported this to police.

The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident the following day and discussing whether the communal entrance door was secure. However, it failed to complete a risk assessment at initial contact as per its policy. The resident reported further instances of non-residents accessing and smoking inside block 1 throughout October 2024. The landlord explained it had requested installation of a dummy CCTV camera. On 31 October 2024 the landlord discussed the resident’s concerns with her in more detail.

She explained that non-residents were blocking entrances to her block to buy drugs from residents of blocks 2 and 3. The landlord completed a risk assessment on 1 November 2024 and scored the ASB as “standard” risk. This exceeded the timescales set out in its policy by 29 days. We can see it then met with police to discuss the reported issues and agreed on an action plan in line with its policy. The action plan included: Considering installation of CCTV if the issues persisted.

Writing to all residents to warn it was aware of drug dealing and would take enforcement action against any residents engaged in this. Informally visiting alleged perpetrators to explain it had concerns about drug use or dealing at their property. Asking the resident if she was comfortable with it passing her details to police. The landlord acted fairly by sharing this action plan with the resident. However, we can see no evidence that it wrote to all residents as agreed, or that it informally visited alleged perpetrators.

Therefore, it failed to fully implement this plan. On 26 November 2024 the resident asked for an update on CCTV and reported that bikes had been stolen from block 1. The landlord advised it would update her the following day. It then failed to do so. The landlord asked the resident for an update on any current ASB concerns on 21 January 2025. She explained that she’d had some noise issues with a flat, who had loud parties previously but that she was able to ignore it. She noted she would use the noise app to document issues if they got any worse.

The landlord acted positively and sympathetically by proactively engaging the resident here. On 28 January 2025 the resident reported that an inebriated non-resident had attempted to access block 1 the night before. The landlord replied on 3 February 2025 and explained it was discussing the installation of CCTV. It encouraged the resident to continue reporting similar issues. Given this report was not an allegation of ASB against any resident, the landlord’s response to this was reasonable and proportionate.

The resident reported noise nuisance caused by loud parties within blocks 2 and 3 on 8 March 2025. She said they responded aggressively to requests to turn the music down. The landlord acted appropriately by following this up 2 days later and asking if the resident was able to identify who was causing the nuisance and to elaborate on the nature of the ASB. The resident supplied a photo on 13 March 2025 of the flat she suspected was the location of the parties. The landlord did not complete a risk assessment and there is no indication it analysed this evidence or considered further actions.

This was not in line with its policy. On 10 and 13 May 2025 the resident reported that “the neighbours” had been playing extremely loud music again. She also supplied a noise app recording. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting her and assuring her that it had reported her concerns to its Safer Communities Team. The landlord issued a CPW to the alleged perpetrator on 21 May 2025 after the evidence the resident supplied determined their flat was likely the source of the noise.

This was appropriate and in line with the escalation process set out in its policy. It also did well to update the resident that it had taken this action on 23 May 2025. She continued to report the same issue. Following receipt of the resident’s complaint about its handling of ASB, the landlord completed a risk assessment on 1 June 2025. It analysed the resident’s evidence and escalated its approach by issuing a CPN to the alleged perpetrator on 2 June 2025. This was in line with its ASB policy.

In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it advised it had issued the CPN against the alleged perpetrator of noise nuisance. It said it had received a single noise report immediately following this but none since. The evidence in the case supports this. It also explained that it was currently unable to do very little to fully resolve her reports of ASB by non-residents since these appeared to be “one-off” incidents involving non-identified individuals. However, to progress this it committed to organising a meeting with the resident and police, and to install permanent CCTV.

It also encouraged the resident to report criminal activity to police. The landlord is only able to take enforcement action against its own residents, and only if it can identify them with evidence. Therefore, we consider the action plan proposed by the landlord to involve police and install CCTV was proportionate and reasonable to try and address the reports of ASB by non-residents. Over the following month the landlord liaised with the resident to schedule the meeting with police.

The resident had an emergency to attend to in July 2025 and so the meeting did not go ahead until 7 August 2025. The meeting was attended by the resident, the case manager, and a police officer. They agreed a detailed action plan which included: The discussion of mediation with the alleged perpetrator if noise issues persisted. Installation of permanent CCTV to deter drug use and dealing on the estate. An online folder for the landlord and police to share information about ASB on the estate.

Police inspections of properties suspected of drug use and dealing. Providing regular updates to residents about actions taken. Police to set up a single point of contact for reports of criminal behaviour on the estate. The landlord acted appropriately here by involving police in the wider strategy to address the ASB issues on the estate. It was also helpful in confirming actions the police would take to address criminal behaviour like drug use by non-residents, given the landlord is not responsible for addressing this.

This multi-agency approach was in line with the landlord’s obligations under its ASB policy. The landlord relayed the outcomes of this meeting to the resident promptly and agreed to update her on progress in 2 weeks. However, it failed to do so. This communication failure partially undermined its earlier positive actions. On 20 September 2025 the resident reported further instances of threatening behaviour by non-residents and drug dealing in block 2. She also asked for an update on whether CCTV costs would be passed onto shared owners.

The landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to this email as per its policy. The resident made no further ASB reports for the following 2 months. In its stage 2 response the landlord advised that CCTV had been approved but gave no timescales for installation. Given it had decided to proceed with this by August 2025 it is unclear why it was no closer to at least approximate timescales by this stage. There is no evidence of internal emails progressing this action during this 3-month period.

Therefore, we do not consider the landlord took suitable action to move this forward. The landlord summarised the outcome of the August 2025 meeting with police. It said it would continue to report instances of ASB by non-residents and criminal behaviour to police. The landlord also advised that it would proceed with mediation if the resident made further noise nuisance reports against the other tenant. The resident had not reported any further noise issues following the CPN the landlord issued in June 2025.

Therefore, the landlord acted as per its ASB policy by agreeing to escalate its approach only once the resident evidenced further instances of the alleged behaviour. In summary, we consider that the landlord generally handled the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy. It worked well with police and used appropriate enforcement action. However, there were occasions in which its handling fell short of the requirements set out in its policy. These included delayed risk assessments, not updating the resident and slow progress on CCTV installation.

We consider these issues with its handling likely caused the resident some inconvenience as she had to occasionally chase for updates. We note the landlord did not acknowledge these omissions at either complaint stage. Our compensation guidance sets out payments of £50 to £100 are typically appropriate to put right failures which have caused inconvenience, time and trouble to a resident where there have been delays. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay £100. We have also ordered it to: Provide the resident with timescales for the installation of CCTV.

Update her on any progress made during its partnership working with police in relation to drug dealing and drug use on the estate. Address any current concerns she has about ASB in accordance with its policy. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress The landlord’s complaint handling policy sets out that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and issue a response within 10 working days of this. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and issue a response within 20 working days.

When this is not possible it will update residents and provide new timescales. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The resident asked the landlord to investigate her concerns as a group complaint on 3 and 5 June 2025. The landlord replied on 9 June 2025 and explained that it could do this if she provided consent from all parties for her to complain on their behalf. There is no evidence the resident or any other neighbours provided this consent. For this reason, the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns as an individual complaint.

This was appropriate and in line with the Code. The landlord handled the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its policy timescales. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 24 June 2025. The landlord acknowledged this within its policy timescales. It also advised that due to backlogs it would likely take longer than expected to issue a response. It issued its response 87 working days past its timescales. However, we can see the landlord apologised for this delay in its final response and offered the resident £200 in compensation.

This sum is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident. For this reason, we consider the landlords offer proportionate to the delay. Learning The landlord’s approach to handling the resident’s concerns was generally good and in line with its policy. However, it failed to address her September 2025 report or meaningfully progress the installation of CCTV from August 2025. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord’s record keeping was good.

For instance, it kept very detailed minutes of the multi-agency meeting on 8 August 2025 and recorded its reasoning surrounding its escalatory enforcement actions. Communication The communication overall has some room for improvement. For instance, it failed to update the resident on some occasions. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on the importance of responsive communication. We would also encourage it to reflect on how it might have better mitigated any impacts caused by ASB on the resident via improved communication.