Birmingham City Council (202422793)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Issuing of a warning letter.
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration regarding the landlord’s issuing of a warning letter.
   2. There was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s issuing of a warning letter

4. The landlord did not discuss all allegations with the resident prior to issuing the warning letter.
5. There was a lack of communication in its issuing of the warning letter.
6. The landlord could have conducted a more thorough investigation prior to issuing the warning letter.

Handling of the complaint

7. The landlord did not act in line with its published complaints policy.
8. Its policy was not in line with the statutory Complaint Handling Code.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not investigated

9. The has resident has requested a home move to another landlord. We may not consider matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome that is not within our authority to provide.
10. It is important to note that our role is not to determine whether the resident’s behaviour was as the landlord asserted. Instead, our role is to investigate whether the landlord’s response was reasonable and proportionate based on the evidence it had.

The landlord’s issuing of a warning letter

11. The landlord received reports from staff regarding the resident’s alleged behaviour on 31 January 2024 and 1 February 2024, which it discussed with the resident. It received further reports from staff regarding the resident’s alleged behaviour on 6 and 25 March 2024 and interviewed a member of staff to gain an insight into the incidents. It was following this that the landlord decided to issue a written warning to the resident.
12. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the incidents that allegedly took place in March 2024 to explain why the behaviour was not acceptable or to hear her viewpoint. It would have been reasonable to try to speak to the resident to gain a broader insight into what had happened so it could consider information from all parties before deciding on the next steps to take. Discussing all incidents with her would likely have helped maintain the landlord and resident relationship and would have been in line with our dispute resolution principles.
13. In her complaint, the resident disputed the allegations made against her and said the landlord had not issued a verbal warning. The landlord’s ASB policy does not require that it issues a verbal warning. Rather, it says warnings will always be confirmed in writing and advice given about the ramifications of further ASB.
14. We would expect the landlord to undertake a thorough investigation when considering a resident’s complaint. The evidence provided shows it asked relevant staff members for their views, which was appropriate to clarify why it had issued the warning letter so it could make a reasoned decision. However, the landlord has not evidenced how it carried out a thorough investigation given that it did not manage to speak with all employees directly involved with issuing the warning letter.
15. There is also no evidence that the landlord investigated each of the allegations by considering evidence such as call notes, ASB reports and witness reports.
16. When the resident escalated her complaint, she again disputed that the landlord had issued a verbal warning for which she provided a part-call recording. After listening to this, the landlord’s stage 2 response said it had not given any warning and that it had not given permission to record the call. However, its records from the date of the call confirmed it gave the resident permission to record this, which contradicted its stage 2 response.
17. While it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion and evidence presented by its staff, the landlord could have conducted a more thorough investigation. Had it done so, it may have prevented the resident making her complaint.
18. The landlord’s investigation concluded that there was no reason to overturn its issuing of the warning letter. In managing the resident’s behaviour, it relied on the evidence it had and linked the written warning to the tenancy conditions. While we have not determined whether the resident’s behaviour was as the landlord asserted, the landlord was entitled to decide that a written warning was appropriate following its investigations.
19. However, we have found that there was a maladministration regarding how the landlord managed the behaviour of the resident and its lack of communication prior to issuing the warning letter.

20. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition, effective from 1 April 2024. The landlord had a published complaints policy that complied with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales for acknowledging and responding to a complaint at each stage of its 2-stage process. However, the Code includes extensions for issuing responses at each stage, whereas the landlord’s policy did not.
21. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and issued a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. It received the resident’s complaint on 14 May 2024 and acknowledged this on 17 May 2024, which was in line with its process. However, it said it would issue a stage 1 response within a further 15 working days, which was not in line with its complaints policy. Then, on 29 May 2024, it said there would be a delay. The resident experienced a delay of 8 working days in the landlord issuing a stage 1 response, which likely caused her inconvenience.
22. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within 5 working days and issued a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days, which was in line with its complaints policy.
23. Overall, there was a service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

Communication

24. This investigation has identified communication failures of the landlord, in relation to each complaint issue. The landlord has not provided evidence that it communicated effectively with the resident.