Birmingham City Council (202411803)

Background

1. The resident made multiple complaints of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour against his neighbour over several years. The resident has mental health vulnerabilities, and his mother represented him throughout the complaint. The landlord corresponded directly with her. For clarity, we will refer to all correspondence from or to his mother as being with “the resident”.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord repeatedly delayed contacting the resident after opening the antisocial behaviour case. It did not provide an evaluation of evidence submitted or conduct case reviews in line with its policy. Although it subsequently offered proportionate compensation, this was well after the end of the complaints process.
5. The landlord failed to address all the resident’s concerns and evidence a reasonable investigation into the complaint.

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.

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 didn’t investigate

6. The resident reported that the ASB affected his health and wellbeing. We do not doubt this. However, we cannot determine causation or liability for health impact. This is more appropriate for the courts to deal with or as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused and whether the landlord adequately considered his vulnerabilities.
7. This investigation focuses solely on the ASB case the landlord opened in September 2023. Although the resident had several previous ASB cases involving the same neighbour, he confirmed (following the complaint acknowledgement) that only the September 2023 case formed part of the complaint. The previous complaint was closed in March 2023 as environmental health investigated the alleged noise. The earlier cases therefore fall outside the scope of this report, though there is some reference to provide context.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord’s ASB policy requires contact within 24 hours for threats or intimidation, 5 working days for noise nuisance, and 10 working days for neighbour disputes. It will contact the resident by phone or visit, complete a risk assessment and action plan, liaise with other agencies, and gather evidence to a civil standard. If there is evidence that proves the report, it will consider proportionate actions such as mediation, support, warnings, or agreements, with a proportionality check before any legal action. It will review cases monthly.
9. Under its domestic noise procedure, the landlord will carry out a home visit to identify practical measures, contact asset management if insulation is poor, speak to neighbours for evidence, and consider installing noise monitoring equipment.
10. The landlord previously closed ASB cases due to insufficient evidence. It was appropriate and in line with its policy to open a new case in September 2023 when the resident again reported banging and alleged verbal abuse.
11. The landlord completed a risk assessment within 5 working days and recorded the resident’s mental health vulnerabilities. However, it then failed to contact him for 4 weeks, far exceeding its 10 day maximum timeframe. This was inconsistent with the high risk category it had assigned the case. The landlord sought to contact the resident’s mental health worker the day before making contact. Although this was in line with its policy, this did not mitigate the extensive delay. During this time, the resident repeatedly chased for an update, likely causing him distress and inconvenience.
12. In October 2023, the landlord made an action plan with the resident. This was appropriate and in line with its policy. It visited the resident and his representative in October 2023. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy and domestic noise procedure.
13. The landlord’s visit notes show it did not hear any noise despite the resident explaining there was a consistent buzzing noise during the visit. The landlord appropriately went into several rooms to check and did not hear a noise. It considered the resident’s recordings insufficient but did not explain why. This was unreasonable and showed a lack of transparency in its decision making.
14. At the same time, the landlord visited the neighbour and confirmed there was no noise making machinery and the neighbour denied the allegations. This was a reasonable step in line with its policy to gather evidence. It appropriately communicated this to the resident. Although the landlord did not test insulation with a second staff member as its procedure recommends, this was mitigated by previous noise monitoring results indicating adequate insulation.
15. In October 2023, the landlord carried out a follow up call to the resident to discuss next steps. The resident declined to use the Noise App but agreed to send recordings. It noted it would look at mediation which was an appropriate next step in its policy where it lacked supporting evidence. The resident has said the landlord was abusive and aggressive during this call. The landlord’s call notes do not reference this, and it does not appear to have recorded the call.
16. In November 2023, the landlord confirmed it had no evidence of noise nuisance but offered noise monitoring equipment and mediation, which the neighbour had agreed to. This was a reasonable step to gather evidence and these actions were in line with its policy.
17. The resident emailed in February 2024 to say he had sent recordings in December 2023, but the landlord did not respond to this and there are no notes on the system. If it had not received them or did not deem them to be suitable evidence, it would have been reasonable to inform the resident of this.
18. In February and April 2024, the resident reported new ASB incidents involving a white substance thrown at his window, intimidation, and threatening behaviour. The landlord did not respond to these reports. This was unreasonable and a failing under its ASB policy.
19. The landlord did not provide any updates to the resident between November 2023 and its complaint response in May 2024, despite a case review in March 2024. This was the only recorded case review, demonstrating it had not completed the required monthly reviews. The failure to monitor was particularly concerning given the landlord classed this as a high risk case. The landlord missed opportunities to improve its communications and review its action plan. The resident repeatedly chased for updates, likely causing distress and inconvenience and meaning he felt the need to make a formal complaint.
20. The landlord’s stage 1 response in May 2024 did not acknowledge delays, communication failings, or its lack of evaluation or logging of evidence provided by the resident. Instead, it referenced the lack of evidence in previous cases and concluded there were no failings on the current case. It also failed to acknowledge that the resident had resorted to contacting his councillor due to its poor communication.
21. The landlord did not address the alleged behaviour on the phone call and referred to a different occasion when it had left a voicemail. Nevertheless, it reasonably assigned a senior officer to manage the case from this point.
22. The landlord upheld the stage 2 complaint in June 2024 due to the confusion it had caused in its stage 1 response by referencing a different phone call. Although it was reasonable to acknowledge this, it failed to take the opportunity to appropriately review its ASB case handling.
23. Between June and December 2024, the landlord has said it attempted to arrange installation of noise monitoring equipment, which was appropriate under its procedures. In October 2025 it reviewed the complaint again and awarded £500 for its communication failures.
24. We welcome and encourage landlords to learn from complaints. This review was over a year after the end of the complaints process but it is positive that the landlord recognised its failings and offered compensation in line with our remedies guidance for failings that had an adverse impact. This amount of compensation exceeded its standard maximum for service failure and was appropriate to recognise the impact its failings had on the resident.
25. Overall, the landlord failed to manage the case in line with its own policies. It delayed contacting the resident for 4 weeks despite identifying a high risk, provided poor communication, and did not conduct the required monthly case reviews. It also failed to explain why submitted recordings were insufficient, did not respond to evidence the resident said he had sent, and overlooked all of this in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
26. Although the landlord took some reasonable steps such as conducting visits, offering mediation, and attempting to gather evidence, its communication failures, delays, and inadequate case reviews caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Its later recognition of these failings and the £500 compensation offered appropriately reflected the adverse impact in line with our remedies guidance. Given the landlord did not use the complaints process to put things right, we have still found maladministration. The landlord’s late compensation offer was proportionate so we have not ordered further compensation.

27. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s policy is in line with this.
28. The resident sent her complaint via post which the landlord received after 7 working days. It acknowledged the complaint within 1 working day of receipt and sent the stage 1 response 4 working days later. It issued the stage 2 response within 15 working days of the resident’s escalation request. It therefore sent its complaint responses within the appropriate timescales.
29. The stage 1 complaint failed to address the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. It did not appropriately acknowledge the resident’s specific concerns or evidence it had interviewed the relevant staff member or the resident to obtain further details. Investigations into staff conduct should involve interviewing both parties. This response fell short of the Complaint Handling Code requirement for adequate investigation and reasoned responses.
30. The landlord again failed to address this in its stage 2 response. It took no further investigative steps into the staff conduct issue raised. This was an unreasonable response. Although it is usual practice not to share the details of staff conduct investigations, it would have been reasonable to confirm it had followed an internal process and manage the resident’s expectations.
31. The landlord met complaint handling timescales but failed to properly investigate the resident’s staff conduct concerns. The failure occurred at both complaint stages and left the resident without assurance that it had taken his concerns seriously. It did not address the specific allegations, gather evidence, or explain if it was following any internal processes. We find maladministration and have made an order for an apology and compensation of £100. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that had an adverse impact.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. While the landlord generally kept good records, it failed to document the resident’s submitted evidence or record clear reasons why it considered the recordings unsuitable. This created gaps that weakened the audit trail and made decision‑making less transparent. To strengthen practice, staff should record all evidence received, document the rationale when evidence cannot be relied upon, and ensure that it routinely completes and documents case reviews for more effective case management.

Communication

33. The landlord repeatedly failed to respond to the resident’s reports of ASB while continuing to engage with the neighbour about counter‑allegations. This created an imbalance in communication that undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord’s impartiality and overall approach. Clear, timely communication is essential to demonstrate neutrality, particularly in neighbour disputes. The landlord should ensure it acknowledges and responds to all reports, explains the weight of available evidence, and sets realistic timescales for updates. Where it is likely to close a case due to insufficient evidence, it should communicate this proactively and transparently to manage expectations and maintain confidence in the investigation process.