Redditch Borough Council (202519700)

Decision
Case ID	202519700
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Redditch Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	29 April 2026

Background

The resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) to the landlord. This was about a neighbour dispute and cannabis use. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She felt it did not resolve the matter. During the complaint the landlord recorded mental health vulnerabilities for the resident on its systems. The resident told the landlord that one of her children had vulnerabilities due to autism, ADHD and asthma.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord took prompt action to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB. However, it did not fully follow its ASB policy. For example, it did not complete a risk assessment or action plan. It did not manage her expectations at an early stage or consider her concerns that the issue impacted on her mental health.
The landlord’s complaint responses addressed the resident’s concerns. However, it extended its stage 2 investigation beyond the timeframe set out in its complaints policy. Its responses also failed to show empathy of the impact the issue had on the resident.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failure in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 27 May 2026
3	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss any current ASB concerns she has: Confirm if it considers any issues she is reporting to be ASB which it can investigate under its ASB policy. If she is reporting further ASB, the landlord is to agree a time specific action plan. Explain what evidence it would need, how the resident can provide such evidence and any action it could take. Offer the resident support through internal and external agencies.	No later than 27 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 August 2025	The resident raised her complaint with the landlord. She said: The reported ASB and overcrowding in her property had a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of her family. It had not taken effective action to resolve the ASB. She had tried to address a parking dispute herself but was met with hostility by her neighbours. She was worried about approaching them directly about the issue again. Her son needed his own bedroom due to his medical needs. She had reported an incident of her neighbour’s child riding a motorbike on the pavement. However, the police did not act. The issues had caused her older children to spend time away from the property. She also did not want to use her garden. This was causing her anxiety and stress.
19 September 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said: Its housing officer had spoken to her when she raised her complaint. They advised it was important it spoke to her neighbour about the issues. She was ok with it doing this and its officer had kept her updated about appointments with her neighbour. It arranged for her to visit its offices, so it could update her on its interviews with her neighbour. It did this after she said she was not comfortable with it visiting her property. There was no further action it could take at this point so it advised her on how she could report any further ASB. There was little action it could take about her reports of a neighbour smoking cannabis. She would need to report this to the police. It had kept in contact with her and the neighbour and offered her advice on how to use its ASB app. There was no evidence that it failed to communicate how it would deal with the ASB. Its officer’s approach was in keeping with its protocols for keeping alleged perpetrators informed. It was clear that she was kept informed of this and agreed to its approach. There was no evidence from the information she provided that she was at risk of harm. It was not possible for it to manage ASB cases without keeping all parties informed. Based on the evidence of its housing officer and case notes it did not uphold her complaint.
19 and 20 September 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: She was unhappy with its response, as the majority of what it said were lies. Its housing officer contacted her after she had already arranged to visit her neighbour. The sequence of events contradicts its version. Her complaint was not just about moving home. It also related to ASB, breaches of confidentiality and the impact on her wellbeing. She did not want it to become a debate over the actions of its officer. Although, they should be held accountable for their actions. It seemed like it was focussed on defending its officer rather than dealing with the impact on her.
30 October 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: There was no evidence it had breached confidentiality. This was as she did not raise concerns about it working with her and the neighbour to resolve the issue. The ASB had settled down, with no other reports than those about a parking dispute. This was a criminal matter she should report to the police. She contacted it on 20 October 2025 about the parking dispute. However, she did not want it to contact her neighbour for fear of further intimidation. It had not set her account up correctly on its ASB app. It apologised for this and sent her a new link. It appreciated the impact neighbour nuisance was having on her. It considered this was low level nuisance. The only support it could give was discussions with her neighbour. Only after this could it consider legal remedies. It had managed the issue in line with its tenancy management policy and ASB policy, as well as the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014. It could provide mediation as a remedy to the issue if she wanted this. It had contacted the police. They confirmed she did not meet the threshold for a move to another property based on the level of risk. It had provided her with advice and support on her housing options. Its stage 1 response had considered the information she sent it about her concerns on its handling of the case. It had a duty to ensure CCTV complied with legislation. Its housing officer discussed this with her to ensure she did not put herself in a position of legal challenge. It had the same conversation with her neighbour. It accepted it could learn from how it handled her case. It would arrange training for its staff about errors on its ASB system. It would also ensure training, so its staff give mediation as an option. It did not uphold her complaint as it could not find evidence of a service failure.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She said: The landlord did not give meaningful resolution to her complaint and she did not feel mediation was safe. Its ASB portal did not support sending of video evidence. She told it she had this but did not understand why it did not review her evidence. She was being intimidated and targeted behaviour towards her was causing distress and anxiety. She wanted the landlord to review its handling of her ASB case, complete a review of its overcrowding assessment and confirm it had fulfilled its duty of care to provide her with suitable accommodation. She wanted compensation for distress and inconvenience. She had made further reports of ASB. The landlord said it wanted to start its investigation again. She felt this was inappropriate.

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 did not consider

Part of the resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s handling of her reports about overcrowding. This is part of the wider range of services the council provides and not part of its landlord function. This is a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), and we cannot consider this part of the complaint.

Complaint	ASB
Finding	Maladministration

The resident reported ASB to the landlord on 4 August 2025. She said a neighbour’s son was riding a motorbike on the pavement, which she had reported to the police. She also said there was a cannabis smell in her property. The landlord’s records show she said she was concerned for her children’s safety and scared to say anything to her neighbour. The landlord’s ASB case records show it told her on 8 August 2025 she should report the matters to the police. There is no evidence it took any other action at this point. This was a failure to follow its ASB policy that says it will fully investigate reports of ASB.
When the resident raised her complaint, she reported noise nuisance and a parking dispute. The landlord’s records show that it contacted her on 19 August 2025. It said it would contact her neighbour to discuss her ASB reports, and it would not tell them the origin of the complaint. The resident believed that it told her of this after it had already contacted her neighbour, however the evidence does not confirm this. She raised concerns with the landlord that it had breached her confidentiality, in its discussions with her neighbour. While we do not dispute this, we have not found evidence the landlord did so. As such we are unable to make a determination on this matter.
On 19 August and 20 August 2025, the resident made several further reports of ASB from her neighbours. She said the ASB had escalated since the landlord contacted her neighbour and she was being intimidated and harassed by them. This left her feeling scared and anxious. The landlord’s stage 2 response said that it had managed the case in line with its ASB policy. The evidence it has provided this investigation shows instances where the landlord did not follow its ASB policy. For example, the landlord’s records show:
1. It did not complete a risk assessment for the case, which its ASB policy says it will do.
2. It did not complete an action plan. Its ASB policy says it complete this, so residents know what to expect from its investigation.
The landlord’s failure to complete a risk assessment and action plan is a concern. The ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 says a risk assessment should be the starting point of a case-management approach to dealing with ASB. As it did not do this it failed to identify any risk or impact the ASB was having on the resident. Had it completed an action plan and shared this with the resident, she would have been fully aware of what it intended to do to try and resolve the issue. Had an action plan been completed, it is reasonable to conclude she would have known it would contact her neighbour in advance of it doing so. This was not reasonable.
The landlord contacted the resident on 20 August 2025. It said it would check the position of her CCTV camera to address any concerns her neighbour may have about its position. The resident was unhappy with this. She told it on 22 August 2025 she felt it was focussing on this and dismissing her concerns about parking. We have not seen evidence that supports this. Its stage 2 response addressed this issue. It said it had a duty to ensure she complied with legislation to protect her from legal challenge. It had advised her neighbour the same. This was reasonable and shows it was taking steps to support the resident.
The landlord’s evidence shows it took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns. For example:
1. On 20 August 2025 it interviewed her neighbour about the reported ASB. This was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy that says it will fully investigate to understand all the facts of the matter reported to it.
2. On 2 September 2025 it met with the resident at its office to inform her of the outcome of its meeting with her neighbour. This was reasonable and in line with the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 which says landlords must keep victims updated on action taken.
3. On 2 September 2025 it advised her to contact her local council to ask for audio recording equipment, in response to her reports of noise nuisance. This was in line with its ASB policy that says the council are responsible for dealing with such issues.
The landlord told the resident on 2 September 2025 it could not police the car parking area at her property. This was reasonable to manage her expectations on this matter. However, there is no record that it considered sending a general letter to residents in the area about the issue. This was a failure to follow its ASB policy that says it will use such early intervention measures to try and prevent issues escalating.
The resident reported an issue with using the landlord’s ASB app on 2 September 2025. It was reasonable that it gave her alternatives so she could report any ASB. This shows it wanted to support her to resolve the issue. Its stage 2 apologised for the problem and sent her a new link to register for the app as a remedy. This was reasonable.
The resident made further reports about her neighbour blocking her car in on 8 and 21 October 2025. She said she felt like her neighbour was targeting and intimidating her. She told it she was reluctant for it to contact her neighbour again as she had experienced further hostility from them. She said this had impacted on her mental health. However, there is no record that it responded to her at this point to discuss the situation. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its ASB policy that says it will help to provide practical and emotional support.
There is no record outside of its complaint response it explained what it could do to resolve the intimidation and cannabis issues. Its stage 1 response told her to report the cannabis issue to the police. Its stage 2 response said it considered the ASB to be “low level nuisance” and it could not resolve the intimidation issue without contacting her neighbour. This was not reasonable and it should have considered setting out its position at the earliest opportunity to manage her expectations.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will offer mediation as a possible remedy for neighbour disputes. There is no record that it did this until its stage 2 response. This was not reasonable. It should have considered offering this as part of its ASB investigation at an earlier stage. However, its stage 2 response acknowledged this and said it would provide training to its staff to ensure it offered mediation in future.
The resident sent the landlord video evidence of the alleged intimidation from her neighbour. However, there is no record that it told her that it had considered this as part of its investigation. This was not reasonable. She told us she did not understand why it did not review this. It should have considered clarifying its position on this evidence.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said it had contacted the police regarding the ASB. They told it the issues did not meet the threshold to provide the resident with an alternative property. However, there is no evidence it contacted the police. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s stage 2 response explained its ASB process. It said it could only consider legal remedies after taking steps to resolve the issues. This was reasonable, but again it would have been beneficial to have explained this to the resident at the earliest opportunity in order to better manage her expectations.
The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports of ASB. The evidence shows it took steps to try and resolve the issue. However, its complaint responses did not identify the failures we have found. This inconvenienced the resident as she chased it for a resolution through its complaints process. However, its stage 2 response did not give her a remedy to resolve the reported ASB. There is no evidence that shows the resident was at risk of harm. However, she has told us that the issue is still ongoing and has escalated. We have made a finding of maladministration for failures which the landlord did not identify that impacted on the resident.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £200 compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance for failures that it did not acknowledge. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any ASB concerns she may have.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will send acknowledgement within 5 working days at both stages. It will respond within 10 working days of its acknowledgement at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. Its complaint policy says where it needs to extend its investigation, it will explain the reasons for this, tell the resident its revised response date, which should not exceed 10 working days without good reason.
The landlord’s evidence shows it contacted the resident to acknowledge her complaint at both stages within its published timeframes. However, there is no record of its acknowledgement letters. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord told the resident on 7 September 2025 of an extension to its stage 1 investigation. It explained the reason for this and sent its response on 19 September 2025, which was the revised date. This was reasonable.
The landlord told the resident on 21 October 2025 it had extended its stage 2 investigation. It advised her it would respond by 20 November 2025, 40 working days after its acknowledgement. However, it did not provide a good reason for its extension being over the 10 working days set out in its complaints policy. This was a complaint handling failure, which it did not identify.
When the resident escalated her complaint, she felt its stage 1 response focussed on defending its officer rather than the impact on her. Its complaint responses addressed the issues she had raised and what actions it had taken. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer to its officer’s actions, as they were leading its ASB investigation. However, its responses did show a lack of empathy of the impact on the resident. Our Spotlight Report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights says good complaint handling should be underpinned with empathy and respect.
The landlord’s complaint responses identified learning from the resident’s complaint. It explained it would provide training to its staff. This was reasonable and shows it was committed to improving the service it provides its residents.
We have made a finding of service failure due to the landlord not providing good reason to extend its stage 2 investigation beyond 10 working days. However, this delay was short and had a minimal impact on the resident. In line with our compensation guidance, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident.

Learning

There is learning for the landlord from the resident’s complaint. It should ensure its complaint responses show empathy to the impact of issues residents experience.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We found record keeping failures in the landlord’s response to the issue the resident raised. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was good. Its evidence shows this was in person, by email and telephone. By following this up with formal letters it can strengthen its communication and improve relationships with its residents.