Birmingham City Council (202428461)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428461

Birmingham City Council

8 July 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of anti social behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident and his wife are secure tenants of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a bungalow, the tenancy began in November 2018. The landlord has recorded that the resident’s wife is vulnerable due to her mental and physical health.
  2. The resident has reported several instances of ASB throughout his tenancy by several individuals, including Mr A who lives next door to the resident.
  3. In its handling of the resident’s reports, the landlord refers to the use of a community trigger. Community triggers were renamed ‘anti social behaviour case reviews’ in March 2023. For clarity, this report uses the phrase community trigger, because this is what the landlord and resident have used throughout this matter.
  4. The landlord opened an ASB case file on 15 February 2024 because the resident’s car window had been smashed, it conducted a risk assessment and contacted the resident to discuss the matter. The landlord visited the resident and a referral was made to Neighbourhood Relations Service for mediation in April 2024, but this was not successful. On 14 May 2024, the landlord referred the resident to a mental health support project.
  5. The landlord published its case review recommendations from the community trigger hearing on 21 May 2024, these included:
    1. Visiting the neighbourhood and discussing the issues with residents.
    2. Offering support to the resident, making a referral to the resident’s GP, and checking that the property was suitable for the resident’s needs.
    3. Offering a good neighbour agreement to all parties.
    4. Provide the resident with a list of housing providers
  6. On 12 September 2024, the resident complained to the landlord. The resident expressed frustration that his reports of ASB had not been taken seriously and the behaviour was still happening. The resident stated he was not living in the property due to the ongoing ASB. On 16 September 2024, the resident’s Member of Parliament (MP) also complained on the resident’s behalf and asked the landlord to consider rehousing the resident.
  7. On 30 September 2024, the landlord responded to the resident and the MP’s complaint. It did not uphold the complaint because it felt it had taken all appropriate steps to address the ASB. It stated that it had: 
    1. Spoken with the resident’s neighbours, including Mr A.
    2. Followed the actions recommended in the community trigger case review.
    3. Suggested a good neighbour agreement which was not signed by the resident.
    4. Met with the Police to ask for a tier 1 referral to be made for the resident, which would move them to the highest need on the housing register.
  8. In its complaint response, the landlord also noted that it had tried to speak with the resident in person on several occasions but he had not been available. The landlord also outlined that it had received counter allegations regarding the resident and he had been issued with a warning regarding his behaviour. It stated that the police had not made a tier 1 referral which meant it could not consider rehousing the resident as a matter of urgency.
  9. On 21 October 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He  stated that the recommendations made in the May 2024 review had not worked and he felt that the landlord had not considered his evidence. The resident also reported further instances of ASB.
  10. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 30 October 2024. It outlined the steps it had taken to address the reported behaviour since the case file had been opened in February 2024. It noted that the Police had now provided a tier 1 referral and that the resident was now in housing priority band A, which meant he could bid for 3 properties per week. The landlord confirmed it had considered all the resident’s evidence and that its staff had managed the case appropriately.
  11. The resident referred the matter to us in December 2024 because he remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB. The resident requested to be rehoused, and compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is understood that there have been historical reports of ASB by the resident. We expect residents to raise their concerns with their landlord as a complaint when they arise, so that it can be escalated to us within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months of the landlord’s final response. This report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the reports throughout 2024, because this is what was referenced in the resident’s complaint and is what the landlord has responded to in its complaint response.
  2. Some of the evidence we have received relates to events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 30 October 2024. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, we consider it is fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response.
  3. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB. It is not disputed by either party that the ASB reported was occurring. Our role is to assess whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  4. We have also seen evidence relating to counter allegations made by other residents in the neighbourhood against the resident. This report will only assess the landlord’s handling of ASB reported by the resident because this is what has been referred to us to investigate. Any reference to the counter allegations made is included for context only.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will categorise reports of ASB by severity. Category A complaints include harassment, threats of violence, and criminal behaviour, the policy states that it will make contact within 24 hours. Category B complaints include verbal abuse and noise nuisance, contact will be made within 5 working days.
  2. The policy states that the landlord will interview the complainant to create an action plan. With the complainant’s permission, it will interview the alleged perpetrator. It will keep the resident up to date on the steps it is taking and it will liaise with other agencies who may be able to offer further support or assistance.
  3. An ASB file was opened by the landlord on 15 February 2024, this was in response to reports that the resident’s car window had been smashed. The landlord assigned the incident to category B, and completed a risk assessment. The landlord contacted the resident on 21 February 2024 to discuss his concerns and create an action plan. The landlord visited the alleged perpetrators on 29 February 2024. These actions were appropriate because they were in line with the landlord’s policy.
  4. It is unclear from the evidence on what date the community trigger was initiated. However, recommendations of how to address the ASB were made to the landlord on 21 May 2024. The evidence suggests the landlord completed all of the recommendations made.
  5. The recommendations included initiating a good neighbour agreement, but this was not signed by the resident. The landlord referred the resident and Mr A to mediation but it was noted this had not worked previously. The landlord also advised all the parties involved to not engage with each other to prevent any further escalations.
  6. The landlord engaged with third parties to support the resident, this included making referrals to mental health support networks and the resident’s GP. It also discussed the matter with the police and encouraged it to make a tier 1 referral which would move the resident to the highest bidding band for rehousing. While the police initially did not make the referral, it was appropriate that the landlord explored this avenue.
  7. The landlord was clear with the resident that it did not have sufficient grounds to rehouse the resident without the tier 1 referral. The landlord provided information about mutual exchanges, other Housing Associations, and private renting as alternatives for the resident to explore. It encouraged the resident to report any criminal behaviour to the police so that they could consider it in relation to its tier 1 threshold.
  8. The landlord kept the resident up to date with the steps it was taking. This included several visits to the neighbourhood and meetings with the resident on at least 2 occasions, including on 6 March 2024 and 1 July 2024. The landlord also engaged with other members of the neighbourhood including Mr A to understand the wider issues. This was appropriate because it was in line with its policy.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it comprehensively outlined the steps it had taken to address the resident’s reports. It also outlined that there were occasions when the resident had not engaged with its process, for example by not signing the good neighbour agreement or attending some meetings. The landlord also explained the evidence it had considered, including footage from the resident’s doorbell camera. The landlord noted that, while the reported behaviour was continuing, it considered it had followed its ASB policy and had handled the matter correctly. The response is detailed, fair, and provides a clear explanation for the landlord’s position.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 response repeated the steps the landlord took to address the ASB. The landlord provided explanations for the different steps it had taken to help the resident understand what it had done. It noted that the police had now issued a tier 1 referral and the resident had been informed of this, it encouraged the resident to begin bidding on properties so that he could be rehoused. This response was appropriate in light of the fact the resident had requested to be rehoused as a result of the ASB.
  11. We recognise that the resident is frustrated that the reported ASB is ongoing and do not doubt the distress this has caused. While the landlord’s actions have not prevented further instances, the evidence assessed in this case indicates that the landlord has acted in accordance with its policy. For example, the landlord has:
    1. Discussed the matter with the resident and other neighbours, including Mr A.
    2. Provided updates and regular contact.
    3. Engaged with the community trigger case review recommendations.
    4. Offered mediation and a good neighbour agreement.
    5. Liaised with support agencies and the police.
    6. Provided the resident with housing advice, and encouragement to begin bidding on properties.
  12. As a result, we find there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. We recommend that the landlord contact the resident and offer any support available regarding bidding for a new property, if it has not already done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to provide any support available regarding bidding for a new property.