Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Birmingham City Council (202331908)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331908

Birmingham City Council

6 May 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

  1. This complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The resident’s report that the landlord breached data protection regulations (GDPR) by disclosing personal information to a neighbour who was employed by it.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a property owned by the landlord, which is a local council.
  2. In July 2023, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord about an allegation that the resident had breached his tenancy agreement. They said the matter had been ongoing for more than a year. The MP requested that the landlord investigate and respond accordingly.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 August 2023 to the MP. It explained it tried to visit the resident several times to discuss the unreasonable condition of his front and rear garden before issuing a final warning letter. The resident then had to travel overseas, and so it agreed to discuss the matter upon his return.
  4. The resident contacted us for support. We obtained a copy of the stage 1 complaint response from the landlord in April 2024 and sent it to the resident in May 2024. He escalated the complaint on 26 May 2024, stating the landlord failed to address further incidents with his neighbour, including an alleged death threat. Further, he said it failed to take his reports of ASB seriously and was only concerned with discussing the allegations made about him, rather than his reports of the ASB he had experienced.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 on 2 August 2024. It set out examples of the dates it had communicated with the resident since May 2022 and where it had tried to arrange meetings without success. It provided him with the direct contact details of a housing manager to arrange a meeting to discuss the issues and review any evidence he might have. It identified a delay in its communications and offered the resident £55 compensation.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred the case to us. To resolve the complaint, the resident wants the landlord to recognise it has a personal relationship with his neighbour which impacted the way it treated him.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. Our jurisdiction is what we can and cannot consider. The Scheme governs this. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we may not investigate.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme the following aspect of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction:
    1. The resident’s report that the landlord breached GDPR by disclosing personal information to a neighbour who was employed by it.
  3. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body. The resident’s complaint that the landlord breached GDPR would therefore be a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider.

Scope of investigation

  1. We recognise that following the landlord’s final complaint response on 2 August 2024, the resident expressed concerns over recent incidents impacting his safety and wellbeing, and his request for the landlord to relocate him. These matters did not form part of his initial complaint. Therefore, we cannot investigate them within this case. This is in line with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme. The landlord needs to have an opportunity to investigate and respond under its internal complaint procedure first. It is open for the resident to contact the landlord directly to make a new complaint about those more recent events.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. Not every instance of nuisance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has two main duties when a resident reports ASB. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the ASB. The second is to weigh up and balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. Our role is not to determine whether ASB took place, but rather to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took in response to complaints were appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out timescales in which it will respond to reports of ASB dependent on severity. For serious incidents including verbal abuse/insulting words, threatening or abusive behaviour it will make contact within 5 working days. For minor incidents such as neighbour disputes it will make contact within 10 working days. It will interview the reporter where it will assess risk, vulnerability, and agree an action plan. In all cases it will check its systems to see what it already knows about each party.
  3. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord’s residents have the same rights and responsibilities as each other. The landlord will investigate all complaints of ASB. A resident must not do anything which causes or is likely to cause nuisance to anyone in the local area, nor do anything which interferes with the peace, comfort or convenience of other people living in the local area.
  4. The landlord’s records demonstrate that it received several complaints about the resident. In addition, the resident reported several issues regarding his neighbour. In the Ombudsman’s view, it acted in line with its policy by recording the reports on its case management system and attempting to contact each party to discuss matters. The Ombudsman has considered the frequency and wording of the landlord’s attempted contact. The letters concerning the garden issues were appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord has not evidenced all its contact with the neighbour concerning the resident’s allegations. However, its case management system demonstrates reasonable contact was made.
  5. The landlord’s complaint response outlined its attempts at arranging a meeting with the resident from May 2022 to 8 April 2024. Notwithstanding the impact of Covid-19 and the resident’s personal circumstances, it is evident it made more than reasonable attempts to discuss the situation before proceeding to issue warning letters.
  6. Whilst it is a fundamental part of the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether a landlord has acted appropriately in response to a formal complaint, this will often necessitate an assessment of how the residents own actions may have contributed to the situation. Rather than demonstrating bias in favour of the landlord, this is an example of our independent and impartial role in practice, as we consider the conduct of both parties equally.
  7. The Ombudsman is not questioning the reasons why the resident refused to engage with the landlord in terms of attending a meeting. However, the landlord would not typically be responsible for the delays or impact caused in this instance. This impacted the landlord’s ability to discuss the reported ASB and consider the risk and agree an action plan.
  8. Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that while it was made aware of the alleged death threat by email and a visit was organised to discuss the concerns, it did not view the video footage. This was a shortcoming in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise and apologise for this.
  9. In September 2023 a visit took place with the landlord, a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) and the resident’s partner. The resident said the landlord was late for the meeting and so he had to leave for work. We have no evidence concerning the landlord’s timeliness so are unable to comment here. Records from the conversation show the resident’s partner accused the neighbour of making noise and approaching the occupants of their property in an aggressive way. She also felt the landlord was taking the complainant’s side as they worked for the landlord. Records show the landlord offered mediation to try to resolve the matter amicably. This was a positive response to the ongoing issues and was in line with its policy.
  10. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s experience, we have not seen evidence to demonstrate that the landlord had behaved inappropriately or in a manner that was deliberately unhelpful. Within the final response, the landlord gave the resident the direct contact information for a housing manager and encouraged him to set up a meeting to discuss tenancy management, ASB, new allegations against his neighbour, and any support or welfare issues. It would also view any video footage or other evidence at this meeting. This demonstrates the landlord took the concerns raised by the resident seriously and gave him a reasonable opportunity to express his concerns.
  11. The resident said he tried to arrange a meeting several times after the landlord issued its stage 2 response, but as of the date of this report, this has not taken place. He has not provided evidence of his attempts to arrange a meeting post-complaint. While we are not assessing events that happened post stage-2, a recommendation has been made in this regard.
  12. The landlord offered the resident £55 compensation for an oversight concerning an email that he sent to a staff member in May 2024, which was not passed to the complaints team until July 2024. This in turn impacted its response time when responding to the resident’s complaint. The compensation offered was in line with our remedies guidance for a service failure by the landlord. As such, we consider the landlord offered reasonable redress for its shortcoming.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint that the landlord breached GDPR by disclosing personal information to a neighbour who was employed by it, is outside of our jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the £55 it previously offered within its final complaint response if it has not yet done so. We have made the reasonable redress finding on the basis it pays the above compensation to him.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident to set a date for a meeting with its housing manager to discuss ongoing ASB issues and concerns. It ought to complete a risk assessment and agree an action plan during this time.