Birmingham City Council (202524388)

Background

1. The resident lives in a mid-terraced bungalow. He has made intermittent reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour in the form of noise nuisance since 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

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

4. The landlord investigated the reports of antisocial behaviour appropriately and in line with its policy. However, communication failings exacerbated the situation by giving the resident the impression that his concerns were not being taken seriously.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint appropriately and in line with its complaints policy.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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

6. The resident has referred to ASB incidents relating to noise nuisance dating back to 2023. We recognise that this is a longstanding issue for the resident. However, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the period between July 2024 and September 2025. This is because it is our practice to limit the scope of our investigations to a reasonable period prior to the formal complaint that is referred to us being made. This is usually 12 months prior to the resident making a formal complaint to the landlord. Earlier communications have provided context to the current complaint, but do not form part of this investigation.
7. The resident told us that his, and his partner’s, mental health had been affected by the issues within his complaint. We acknowledge this has been a difficult time for him. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

8. We have not seen evidence that the resident made any reports of noise nuisance to the landlord between July 2024 and February 2025. However, on 6 February 2025 the resident reported that his neighbour’s television was very loud and causing a nuisance.  The landlord responded on the same day, which was positive and demonstrated a commitment to resolving the issues.
9. The landlord provided evidence which showed that between February 2025 and March 2025 it completed the following actions:
   1. Visited the resident to discuss his reports of ASB.
   2. Wrote to the resident’s neighbour to inform them of the allegations.
   3. Conducted ASB surveys with residents from the area.
   4. Provided information to the resident on how to download and use the “noise app”.
   5. Completed an action plan which was shared with the resident.
   6. Arranged for noise monitoring equipment to be installed at the resident’s property.
10. These actions were pro-active and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. On 25 March 2025 the resident confirmed that the noise recording equipment had not captured any excessive noise and that there had been no noise for the preceding 4 weeks. The following day the landlord closed the case. This was reasonable because the resident had provided information which led the landlord to believe the situation had been resolved.
11. We have seen evidence the landlord followed its ASB policy by speaking to the resident and then closing the case in writing. This was appropriate. However, the case closure letter was unclear regarding timescales, and it contained errors such as the misspelling of the resident’s name and the wrong address. This was a shortcoming in communication which caused the resident frustration.
12. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 March 2025 and said he was “disgusted” by the letter. He stated that during his phone call with the landlord it had agreed to monitor the case for a further 2 weeks, then he had received the case closure letter. He said that the “miscommunication and mixed messaging” was “very unhelpful”. We have seen evidence, from the landlord’s case notes, that it had agreed to keep the case open for a further 2 weeks, so it was unclear why the letter was sent. Furthermore, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s email or apologise for the errors. This was a further communication failing which likely damaged the landlord-tenant relationship.
13. The resident raised a further report of noise related ASB on 30 June 2025. The landlord contacted the resident the following day and agreed an action plan, which included installing noise monitoring equipment at the property. It also wrote to the resident to offer mediation sessions with his neighbour. These steps demonstrated it was consistent with its ASB policy and was open to considering a range of strategies.
14. On 5 August 2025 the resident refused mediation and said that he just wanted the noise nuisance to stop. While he was entitled to decline this, we acknowledge that the landlord was limited in what it could do in the situation. The resident later agreed to mediation and complained to the landlord that it had not taken his wishes into account regarding his specific preferences about how it took place. This landlord stated that the mediation company were external. However, the mediation company received their information from the landlord and it should have recognised this in its response. This was a further communication failing.
15. The landlord said, in its stage 1 complaint response, that it did not have a record of the resident’s request to be communicated with via email. While we do not doubt this to be the case, the tone of this response could have been interpreted as dismissive. We have ordered the landlord to contact the resident about his communication preferences if it has not done so already.
16. The resident said, in his escalation request to the landlord, that he had submitted 28 noise app recordings to the landlord between June 2023 and June 2025. He stated that he knew these had not been listened to because they were showing on the app as “awaiting investigation” and if opened by the landlord they would change to “under investigation”. The resident said this made him feel that the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously.
17. The landlord stated, in its stage 2 complaint response, that all of the recordings had been listened to. While we do not dispute that the landlord listened to the recordings, we have not seen evidence that it acknowledged receipt of the evidence the resident provided or contacted him about his noise recordings or diary entries. It was therefore understandable that the resident believed that the evidence was not being considered by the landlord. This was a failing, because the landlord should have communicated with the resident to confirm it had received the evidence and advise whether further action could be taken as a result of it.
18. Effective communication is essential, as it may help to minimise the distress and inconvenience experienced by residents. Throughout this period, the landlord did not consistently take a proactive approach to communicating with the resident about the evidence he was uploading. This falls short of our communication expectations and may have contributed to the resident’s distress.
19. In his escalation request the resident said that the landlord had not responded to his requests for sound proofing at the property. It was unclear from the evidence provided when the resident made these requests. However, the landlord’s explanation in its stage 1 complaint response was brief and did not show that the landlord had considered the request. This was a further communication failing, which likely contributed to the resident’s frustration that the landlord was not taking him seriously.
20. The landlord installed the noise monitoring equipment in September 2025 and removed it 2 weeks later. Following this, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed it had not heard any “excessive” noise on the equipment and it would close the case. However, it advised that it had referred the case for an ASB case review. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
21. Furthermore, we have seen evidence that the landlord liaised with the environmental health department regarding the case. This was positive as it demonstrated a multi-agency approach.
22. The resident told us, in January 2026, that he contacted the landlord in December 2025 and reported further instances of noise related ASB from his neighbour. We can only consider matters which the landlord has had the opportunity to investigate through its own internal complaints procedure, and this concluded in September 2025. The resident can make a separate complaint to the landlord about the other issues if he wants to. He may then refer the new complaint to our service if he remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
23. Our remedies guidance (published on our website) sets our approach to compensation. It states that compensation of between £50 and £100 is appropriate where there was a minor failure by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his ASB case.

24. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. Its policy states it will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will then issue a full response within 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and within 20 working days for complaints at stage 2. These timescales align with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices.
25. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord told the resident that it was unable to investigate his concerns regarding the use of garages opposite his property because this complaint had previously exhausted its complaints process. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy.
26. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 3 working days outside of its complaints policy timescale. This was a failing. It would have been good practice for the landlord to give the resident advance notice of the delay and apologise in its stage 1 complaint response. However, we recognise this delay would have likely had a minimal impact on the resident. Given the absence of any other complaint handling failures, and the short duration of the delay, we’ve considered it proportionate to find no maladministration for complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

27. The records the landlord provided were adequate for us to complete our investigation.

Communication

28. Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights highlights the importance of resident-focused and proactive communication. Unless it has done so already, the landlord could review its communication practices against the recommendations in that report.