Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council handled an incident of harm against her child by a neighbour. She raised concerns about safety and overcrowding and complained it did not rehouse her or award additional priority to move. We did not find the Council at fault for its actions and considerations with the incident. The Council accepted fault for its poor complaints handling and apologised to Miss X. We decided this was appropriate to remedy Miss X’s injustice for this and did not make further recommendations.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly investigate or act against her neighbour for their actions which injured her child, it failed to properly consider her housing priority as she says she is living in unsuitable living conditions with her family, and poor handling of her complaints. She says this has caused significant distress and frustration, and she and her children have been living in overcrowded accommodation where they are at risk of harm.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. In her formal complaint, Miss X also referred to the Council actions with a property offer it made her several years ago. Miss X complained to us in September 2025. Part of the complaint is therefore late (see Paragraph 4). I will not consider that far back as I am satisfied Miss X could have complained or come to us sooner about this earlier period.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered her views.
8. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administrative background

The Council’s allocation scheme

10. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
11. Applicants are placed in one of three housing need Bands (A to C). Band A is for those with the highest need, and Band C is for those with the lowest need. Band A includes those who, at the discretion of the Council, need to move urgently because there are critical safeguarding concerns. Housing Band B includes tenants who are severely overcrowded and have at least two rooms less than the number of rooms they are entitled to.
12. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

Anti-social behaviour and Community Protection Notices (CPN)

13. Councils and the police can issue CPNs to prevent anti-social behaviour which is unreasonable and having a negative effect on the community’s quality of life. A CPN requires the behaviour to stop and, if where appropriate, require the recipient to take reasonable steps to stop it happening again. Not complying is an offence and may result in a fine or a fixed penalty notice. Councils must issue a written warning in advance of a CPN.

Background

14. Miss X lives in a block of flats, in a one-bedroom flat with her children. She is classed as lacking two bedrooms. She has been on the Council’s housing register for several years and on Band B. She is entitled to bid on 3-bedroom properties.
15. Miss X had previously reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) by an upstairs neighbour. This included throwing cigarettes from their window above her front garden causing burns and damage. They are not known to one another. The Council sent a warning letter to all residents on the floor above Miss X’s flat about this. It closed the case.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

16. In May 2025, Miss X reported a serious incident to the Council. Her daughter had been injured due to the actions of an upstairs neighbour and required urgent medical attention. She said the police attended after the incident but had closed the case due to lack of evidence of who did it. She asked the Council to take formal enforcement action. Her MP also raised a query, and she made other separate formal complaints.
17. The next day, an ASB officer responded. They asked Miss X for further information, arranged a call, and explained actions it would look to take.
18. In June, the ASB officer carried out enquiries and kept in contact with the police. They updated the police with their findings and evidence they gathered. The police said there was still insufficient evidence to act, even with the ASB officer’s work. The ASB officer asked the police to confirm the case’s status.
19. The Council sent a Stage 1 complaint response to her concerns, stating its ASB officer would contact her. Miss X was dissatisfied; she said the Council had failed to consider her ongoing safety concerns, in addition to her family living in severely overcrowded conditions. She wanted rehousing.
20. In July, the ASB officer chased the police for an update twice. In August, the police confirmed its investigation closed. The ASB officer updated Miss X.
21. The Council responded to a separate complaint by Miss X at Stage 1, relating to her priority on the housing register due to the incident. It later also sent her a Stage 2 response to her previous complaint on similar matters.
• It said she was in Band B on the housing register. This reflected her overcrowding. She could bid on 3-bedroom properties but explained the current significant waiting times. It suggested she consider other housing options.
• With the serious incident, the police concluded there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. The Council’s ASB officer would interview the neighbour about their conduct. It understood she felt strongly about the incident. But given the isolated nature of it and there had been no further issues, it believed it was reckless behaviour rather than malicious intent to hurt or target her family. It decided it was not proportionate to warrant awarding Band A priority. It would update her about other steps.
22. Miss X contacted the Council for it to act. She did not agree with its conclusion the incident was reckless behaviour. She said her daughter continued to suffer ongoing trauma as a result, with emotional distress and fear around their housing situation.
23. The ASB officer responded with steps it intended to take. They also made a referral to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub due to Miss X’s concerns about her children’s wellbeing.
24. In September, Miss X complained to us. Later, the MP asked the Council to escalate a previous Stage 1 complaint response.
25. In October, the ASB officer updated Miss X. The upstairs neighbour had not responded to two invites to interview. It decided to issue them a Community Protection Warning (CPW). This required them to stop throwing items into Miss X’s front garden and not make direct or indirect contact with her or her family. It said any breaches should be reported to the Council.
26. Miss X acknowledged this but felt the situation had not improved. She said the neighbour played loud music and there was ongoing safety risk with items kept by their window ledge. The ASB officer said the CPW did not cover these actions and advised her to make reports to its noise and nuisance team.
27. In March 2026, the Council sent a Stage 2 response to Miss X.
• The Council generally maintained its previous findings and was satisfied with how it handled her housing priority concerns.
• With the serious incident, it was satisfied it and other agencies acted appropriately. All concluded her family had not been targeted.
• But it did find fault with its complaint handling and apologised. It accepted this added frustration and distress for her. It registered her contact into three separate complaints which it should not have done. It accepted poor communication with delays in providing responses and it did not provide updates. In addition, the creation of duplicate complaint cases caused unnecessary confusion. It did not meet expected service standards. It outlined actions it would take to prevent this in future.

Analysis

Serious incident

28. I do not dispute Miss X’s distress about the harm to her daughter and her fears about potential ongoing risk at the time. I appreciate she does not feel the Council did enough. I have reviewed the actions of the ASB team. Overall, I am satisfied with the Council’s actions to investigate and do not find it at fault. I make the following points:
• I consider the Council generally responsive to Miss X’s concerns; it gave her updates when it could and explained what actions it took and why. I do not consider the Council let the case drift for significant periods of time without action.
• Given the seriousness of the incident resulting in direct harm, I do not criticise the Council for focusing its initial actions on proactively making enquiries and gathering evidence to share with the police. It worked constructively with the police with a likely intended aim to potentially help progress a criminal case.
• It also made referrals for Miss X to get support about her children’s wellbeing, considering her concerns about their safety and risk.
• When the police confirmed its case closure, the Council considered its own powers to tackle the behaviour. After it could not speak to the neighbour (not fault by the Council), it decided in the circumstances, the most proportionate formal enforcement action to take was with a CPW. I recognise Miss X feels this decision is flawed as the Council did not obtain any account direct from her neighbour. However, it considered the information available to it at the time. This is a professional judgement decision which I do not criticise.
29. After the CPW, Miss X raised further concerns. However, these are new events since her formal complaint and are not in the scope of this investigation. If she is dissatisfied with the Council’s actions since October 2025, Miss X is open to make a new formal complaint direct to the Council.

Housing priority

30. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide if someone is eligible for additional priority on a housing register or who should be rehoused. We look at the process of how a council considers, makes and explains its decisions. If we consider it followed processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision is right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.
31. I appreciate Miss X wanted increased priority to help with her housing situation. She felt her family needed to move because of safety fears from her neighbour and overcrowding issues.
32. However, I am satisfied the Council considered relevant information including the nature of the incident, Miss X’s previous reports about the neighbour, whether it was persistent and targeted. It recognised Miss X felt there was ongoing risk, but the Council did not agree. It explained why it decided she did not meet the critical safeguarding threshold for Band A because of the serious incident. I do not find fault in the Council’s decision-making process. It is a decision it is entitled to make, based on the professional judgement of the Council. Therefore, I cannot question the merits of this decision, no matter how strongly Miss X disagrees.
33. Miss X remains on Band B which appropriately reflects her overcrowding status and is in line with the Council’s allocation scheme.

Complaints handling

34. In the Council’s 2026 complaint response, it accepted poor complaints handling with Miss X’s complaints. This fault caused her avoidable frustration and confusion. It explained what had happened, apologised, and took away learning to improve its service in this regard. I consider these actions sufficient to remedy Miss X’s injustice with this fault.

Back to top

Decision

35. I do not find the Council at fault for the main issues raised in Miss X’s formal complaints. I find fault with its poor complaints handling, causing injustice. The Council has remedied this, and I do not recommend anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman