Birmingham City Council (202418404)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418404

Birmingham City Council

11 August 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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. Anti social behaviour (ASB).
2. Staff conduct.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in August 2012. The property is a 1-bedroom low rise flat. The resident is elderly and lives on a sheltered scheme.
The resident’s daughter raised the complaint on the resident’s behalf and is representing the resident. For the purpose of this report the representative will be referred to as the resident.
The resident reported ASB from her neighbours in February 2024. For the purpose of this report the neighbours will be referred to as neighbour A and neighbour B. Neighbour A and B are also tenants of the landlord.
On 29 April 2024 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. In summary she said:
1. She wanted the landlord to investigate its handling of her reports of ASB. She considered that it had not handled the investigation with care and integrity.
2. She was dissatisfied with 2 members of staff and their handling of the matter. She considered their way of dealing with matters could be viewed as discriminative.
On 22 May 2024 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. It apologised that the resident had been made to feel unsupported and that information had been shared with alleged perpetrators causing reprisals.
2. The alleged conduct of its officers was still under investigation. Due to availability and planned leave it had been unable to conclude its investigation. It would provide an update on the outcome in due course and apologised for any inconvenience caused.
3. It had agreed with the resident to only share correspondence with its housing manger. Its manager had contacted the resident to gain a better understanding of the matter and how it could support the resident. It outlined the action plan that was agreed. It confirmed the name of the new officer that would be conducting the investigation into the ASB and offered reassurance that matters would be handled in accordance with its policies and procedures.
On 19 June 2024 the resident escalated her complaint to a stage 2. In summary she said:
1. She had not heard from the new ASB officer since his initial call to her on 28 May 2024. She had not been given any update or support.
2. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had not provided a full response in respect of her complaint about 2 members of its staff.
3. The member of staff was still meeting with neighbour A regularly which was impacting her mental health.
4. She believed that the other member of staff had shared information that was making the ASB worse.
5. She wanted to know if the ASB manager could ensure that her housing application was assessed urgently.
On 16 July 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. In respect of its contact since its stage 1 complaint response. Its officer had last contacted the resident on 28 May because it was a new officer assigned to the case he needed to ascertain a full understanding of the case. He was unable to advise the resident of an action plan at that point as he needed to read the case file.
2. Although the officer had proceeded to investigate the case it could not see any notes to show that it had contacted the resident since and for this it apologised. The officer was waiting for the police to contact him back to advise what action it was taking. It was aware that the officer had now made contact with the resident regarding the recent emails received. It apologised and upheld the resident’s complaint that communication had not been maintained as it should have been.
3. In respect of the conduct of its staff the landlord explained that it had met with the first member of staff, its sheltered scheme officer, to discuss the allegations made. It explained the officers role and the fact that he would have spoken to all parties involved in the case at some point during the course of his job role. This particular officer was not investigating the ASB. The officer was present during interviews at the ASB officers request. It had no evidence to support that racial slurs had been made in its officers presence. If the resident had further evidence for it to look at it would be happy to do so.
4. In respect of concerns that residents were gathered outside the room watching the interview. Its officer said he did not consider the group were deliberately congregating to intimidate the resident but were chatting in the communal area which was commonplace. There was no evidence to show that its sheltered scheme officer had acted inappropriately or favourably in his role so it would not be taking any further action.
5. In respect of its ASB officer sharing information with alleged perpetrators and making matters worse it had spoken to its housing manager in respect of these allegations. Its officers were trained to act impartially and act on the evidence presented. Its officers would need to speak to all parties involved including any alleged perpetrators.
6. Its manager had completed case reviews through the duration of the case and as part of the complaint conducted a fact find exercise with its ASB officer. Following this it was satisfied that its officer had not shared any information that would lead to the resident being placed in danger. As a result of the complaint the case had now been transferred to another officer.
7. In summary it was satisfied that both of its officers had acted correctly in their handling of the resident’s concerns in line with their job roles. It did not therefore uphold this part of the resident’s complaint.
8. It offered £120 compensation for the gaps in its communication since the stage 1 complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service. She said the landlord had not addressed how it would protect her personal information from being poorly handled in the future and what measures had been put in place to prevent the same issues occurring again.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

When the resident contacted this Service, she said that she was dissatisfied as her application to be re-housed had been declined. While the resident’s concerns about this matter are acknowledged, this element of her complaint has not been raised and considered through the landlord’s complaints procedure so will not be considered as part of this investigation.
We acknowledge the resident’s concerns throughout the complaint process that the landlord allegedly discriminated against her in relation to its handling of her ASB reports and in its dealings with her. Unlike a court the Ombudsman is unable to make findings under the Equality Act 2010. The allegation is therefore a legal matter that likely needs considering by a court. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s allegation and whether it considered its legal equality duties.
This Service is also aware that the resident has raised further complaints with her landlord and this Service since July 2024 when the stage 2 complaint was issued. This investigation will only look at the issues up until the stage 2 response which was sent on 16 July 2024.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will initially categorise reports of ASB through its triage system. For urgent cases it will respond within 24 hours. Serious cases within 5 working days and minor within 10 working days.
The policy states the person reporting the ASB will be interviewed, and an action plan will be agreed with them. The action plan should be confirmed in writing and must be updated throughout the investigation. The action plan should include a frequency and method of contact. With the agreement of the person reporting, it should interview the alleged perpetrator, and any witnesses should be interviewed after this. Contact should be made with other agencies involved. Diary incidents books can be issued to collect evidence.
The policy also states that if the evidence supports that ASB has taken place a decision must be made on the appropriate action. The action can involve support referrals or signposting which includes mediation. It can also include warnings and/or voluntary agreements. Where serious ASB has occurred, legal action can be taken.
It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. In cases where there remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to reports of ASB, our role is not to establish whether the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident first reported ASB from both neighbour A and neighbour B on 23 and 24 February 2024. Her reports included neighbour A accusing her of fly-tipping. She said both neighbour A & B were using intimidating behaviour which included verbal abuse resulting in the resident feeling anxious and afraid to leave her home. She also said that she felt that both neighbours were turning other residents against her.
The records show that the landlord opened an ASB case the following Monday 26 February 2024 which was within 1 working day. The landlord spoke to the resident that same day and it completed a risk assessment. The case was allocated to a caseworker, and it arranged to call the resident the next day. It is unclear however what advice it gave the resident during the telephone call. This shows poor record keeping which is a shortcoming in its handling of the issues. The landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s initial report were however in accordance with its policy.
On 1 March 2024 the landlord’s internal correspondence shows that the neighbourhood support officer had been in contact with the resident and neighbour A and B to discuss mediation. He stated that mediation had been declined by some of the parties and asked that someone contact the resident to discuss how the matter could be resolved. This action was also appropriate and in accordance with its policy.
The landlord contacted the resident 10 working days later on 14 and 15 March 2024 and arranged to visit the resident on 19 March 2024. The records state that an action plan was agreed, although this Service has not seen a copy of the action plan. The records do show that on 4 April the landlord advised the resident that it would contact both neighbours and witnesses and once completed it would be able to provide an update.
The landlord interviewed neighbour A and neighbour B in April 2024. It was also arranging to interview the witnesses. There are no records to show that the landlord updated the resident during this period and without sight of the action plan it was unclear what contact arrangements had been agreed. The resident contacted the landlord 17 working days later on 26 April 2024. This was because she was concerned that she had not heard anything.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord was taking action in accordance with its policy by arranging the appropriate interviews and gathering necessary evidence. However, it would have been good practice for the landlord to have ensured that the resident was kept updated with how matters were progressing during this period. By not doing so it failed to manage her expectations and offer reassurance that it was dealing with the issues.
The landlord did then respond to the resident’s concerns. It set out what action it had taken so far and its next steps. It explained that timeframes could vary depending upon the type of case evidence required. It said that once it had all the information it would be able to review the evidence and make a decision on the next actions. This response was appropriate in the circumstances.
The resident reported further incidents of harassment and intimidation at the beginning of May 2024. She mentioned that the police had been contacted but were not taking her reports seriously. She said that incidents were happening on a daily basis. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to assess its handling of the ASB up to that point. This was a failing in its complaint handling and a missed opportunity to try to resolve matters sooner. The evidence shows that, as stated in its stage 1 response, the landlord had agreed an action plan with the landlord on 9 May 2024.
On 15 May 2024 the resident informed the landlord that she did not wish to pursue a case against neighbour B as matters had now been resolved. A new officer was assigned to the case, and he contacted the resident on 28 May 2024 to obtain further information from her about the case. He informed the resident that he was not in the position to recommend the next course of action as he needed to look at all the information. The resident had not heard anything further about what action the landlord was taking which led her to raising her stage 2 complaint on 19 June 2024.
The landlord acknowledged that it had not updated the resident since 28 May and apologised within its stage 2 response. It explained that the officer had been progressing the case and had now updated the resident. The evidence provided supports the landlord’s version of events.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged that there had been gaps in its communication. It offered £120 compensation. This Service agrees with the landlord’s findings.
The landlord cannot take any formal action against alleged perpetrators of ASB, such as an injunction or eviction, without strong supporting evidence to show the behaviour is serious and/or prolonged. It was evident in this case that the landlord needed to gather the appropriate evidence.
The landlord was also dependent on the outcome of police investigations and recommendations to enable it to establish some of its next steps. The landlord would be expected to show the court that it had attempted to resolve the matter informally, such as through tenancy warnings, and or tenancy support before taking legal action. The landlord should also work with other agencies such as the police and support agencies, and it looks as if the landlord has done so in this case.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident. The compensation award was in line with our remedies guidance for situations such as this where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.
The records show that in July 2024 the resident asked for the ASB case to be closed as she did not wish to pursue matters any further. It is acknowledged that the resident has since contacted this Service in July 2025 to advise that there are still ongoing issues. Although this is not being considered within this investigation, a recommendation will be made that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her concerns about ASB if it has not done so already.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
The landlord said within its stage 1 complaint response it had not concluded its investigation about the conduct of its staff. It said that this was due to planned staff absence. It advised that it would share the outcome in due course and apologised for the inconvenience.
The landlord’s explanation for the delay was reasonable. However, it would have been good practice for the landlord to set out a time frame in which it would provide a full response. That it did not was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter. This caused the resident time and effort having to pursue her complaint further. The landlord did however address the issues in its stage 2 complaint response.
In respect of the first member of staff it evidenced that it had interviewed its member of staff. It concluded that the resident and member of staff had interpreted the gathering of residents in the communal area differently. The landlord set out the member of staff’s job role and reasons why he would be visiting the scheme and talking to other residents. It also explained that the officer would continue to do this as part of his job role.
The landlord concluded that there was no evidence to support that its member of staff had acted inappropriately or favourably in his role. This Service considers the landlord’s response was fair and showed that it had listened to the resident’s concerns and taken them seriously.
In respect of its second member of staff the landlord explained the officers role and how investigations would need to be managed when considering reports of ASB. This was appropriate. It explained that senior members of staff review its cases when a case is opened and that this had happened in the resident’s case. The records provided also support this.
In response to the resident’s concerns, it explained that it had interviewed the member of staff. It concluded that there was no evidence indicating that information had been shared that would place the resident in danger. Its response showed that it had made an informed decision based on its investigation findings. Its response was therefore considered fair in the circumstances.
In response to the resident’s concerns, it explained that it had allocated a new officer to her case. This action showed that it was listening to the resident and trying to find a solution. It did acknowledge the new officers delays in updating the resident which has already been assessed earlier in this investigation.
In summary this Service considers the landlord showed that it had investigated the resident’s concerns about its staff members and explained its findings. It also considered how it could alleviate the resident’s concerns by appointing a new member of staff to manage the case. This Service has therefore concluded that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its staff members.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Recommendations

The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £120 as offered in its stage 2 complaint response.
It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her current concerns about ASB if it has not done so already.