Birmingham City Council (202118753)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118753

Birmingham City Council

30 August 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
2. Allegations that it was trying to evict him.
3. Complaints.

Scope of the investigation

The evidence shows that the resident has made multiple reports to the landlord about his neighbour over many years. The Ombudsman previously investigated a complaint brought to us by the resident about the landlord’s response to his reports of cigarette fumes and the condition of his neighbour’s garden (case 202005797). Some of the events in that case happened over the same period as the case that is the subject of this investigation.
This report will not assess the matters already investigated in the previous case but will refer to some events where they are relevant to the matters being investigated in this one.
Similarly, the resident brought another case to the Ombudsman in August 2022 about further issues which has yet to be investigated. This report will not refer to the matters raised by the resident in that case.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a two bedroom first floor flat. The landlord is a local authority which owns and manages the property.
Under the conditions of the tenancy agreement, residents have the right to live in their home without the landlord’s interference as long as they abide by the tenancy conditions. The tenancy conditions include that residents must not do anything which causes or is likely to cause nuisance to, or interferes with the peace of, anyone living in the local area. Residents must not harass anyone in the local area or the landlord’s staff members or representatives and harassment is defined as including acting in any manner that causes distress to others.
The tenancy conditions say that the landlord may take action to stop ASB and give examples of behaviour that is always classed as ASB which include malicious communications, putting offensive “materials” through letterboxes, criminal activity and breaking shared security. They also give examples of behaviour which may be classed as ASB if it causes a nuisance including making loud noise, slamming doors and making ‘unfounded’ complaints.
The ASB policy says that the landlord will use a civil standard of proof when considering evidence and explains this as being on a balance of probabilities.
The landlord’s complaint policy on its website is dated March 2021 and says that the landlord’s process has two formal stages and it will respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord has a separate policy for unreasonable and/or persistent complainants which it may apply where a complainant takes up disproportionate resources preventing it from dealing with complaints in a timely way. It gives examples of unreasonable and persistent complaints including where new complaints are pursued on matters that have already been investigated and answered, where new issues are persistently added to a complaint and where the resident makes an unreasonable volume of contacts. The policy says that the landlord may decide to issue a warning letter and/or restrict channels of communication for complaints but this will not affect the delivery of other services to the individual, and that any decisions will be made by a senior manager.

Summary of events

The evidence shows that between 6 March 2020 and 26 October 2020 the resident made multiple reports to the landlord about his neighbour including about the condition of their garden, smoking in their flat, misusing rubbish bins, banging doors and talking loudly. For example, on 11 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord listing 27 observations which he said had caused him to “question the quality” of his neighbours and on 14 October 2020 the resident asked the landlord to arrange arbitration between him and his neighbours.
The resident had also made several formal complaints to the landlord about its response to his reports including complaining about a complaint response letter the landlord had sent on 19 October 2020 in which the landlord had said that it felt a complaint he had made about the neighbour’s garden had been “malicious and unfounded” and had reminded him of his tenancy conditions.
On 26 October 2020 the landlord sent the resident a tenancy warning letter saying it had received reports of him “tampering” with communal lights, threatening his neighbours with eviction, trespassing on their garden and taking items from it, and searching through their bins. The letter said that the resident had given his neighbour a copy of his email to the landlord which had included the 27 observations of them and questioned their quality as neighbours. The letter referred to the relevant tenancy conditions, said that the resident’s behaviour had caused stress and anxiety to his neighbours, had made them feel harassed and asked the resident to refrain from such behaviour in future.
The resident emailed the landlord to complain about the tenancy warning on 30 October 2020 saying that the allegations were either untrue, justifiable, not a breach of tenancy or were vindictive by the landlord. He asked the landlord to apologise to him. The resident sent another email later that day saying that he could see how certain sections of the landlord’s letter could be applied to the problems he had with his neighbour but he felt he had an obligation to bring the issues to his neighbour’s attention before reporting them to the landlord. He reiterated that he felt the landlord was wrong to have issued the tenancy warning as he believed that his conduct had been justified.
On 9 November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to chase responses to his complaint about its complaint response of 19 October 2020 and his complaint about being given a tenancy warning. The landlord acknowledged the contact and said it had passed his email to the relevant manager.
On 12 November 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response to the resident’s complaint about its complaint response of 19 October 2020. It said that it had found no fault in the way his complaint had been handled and that its response had been appropriate. The letter did not refer to the tenancy warning that it had issued on 26 October 2020.
Between 16 November 2020 and 2 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord at least twice to make reports about his neighbour not living in their flat and not disposing of waste properly. He also emailed the landlord at least 3 times to escalate his various complaints about its responses to his previous reports about his neighbour.
On 4 December 2020 the resident made a further formal complaint saying that the landlord’s contractor had not been able to carry out a roof repair as his neighbour had locked the gate before going away. He said that the landlord had ignored his reports of his neighbour not living in their flat and that he had not been able to let the contractor into the garden area due to the tenancy warning he had been given.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 December 2020 saying that he had not had a response to his complaint about being given a tenancy warning. He suggested that the landlord investigate his suspicions that the officer who had issued the tenancy warning had a relationship with his neighbour that was ‘beyond landlord and tenant’ and may have been instrumental in them being allocated their flat.
On 8 December 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord referring to the tenancy warning letter and asking what the ethnic make up of his neighbourhood was. He subsequently emailed the landlord suggesting that it review its estate management policy to avoid clashes in living habits and cultures when it allocated empty homes.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 9 December 2020 again protesting that its issue of the tenancy warning had been unfair and saying that the landlord had not considered his version of events. He explained he had helped his neighbour cut the hedge because he had been frustrated about its appearance, turned off the communal lights to save energy and felt he had a responsibility to report his neighbour’s misuse of waste bins. His email said he had attached a list of reasons why he and his neighbour should not be living in the same building but this has not been seen by the Ombudsman. The landlord acknowledged his email and added it to its complaint log.
Between 10 December 2020 and 14 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord four times asking for a response to his complaints and raising further issues. He said that the landlord’s instruction that he could not walk on his neighbour’s garden area meant he could not assist contractors with access and would not be able to unblock a drain himself. He said that he felt the landlord had encouraged the neighbour’s ASB towards him and had defended the neighbour when the resident had reported them.
On 14 December 2020 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint about the complaint response letter that it had sent to him on 19 October 2020. The letter also referred to the tenancy warning letter of 26 October 2020 saying that it had been issued after investigation of ASB reports made by the resident’s neighbour about his behaviour and reiterated the reasons that it had been issued. The landlord said it had investigated his allegation that the warning had been given because he had made complaints about staff members and had found no evidence that this was the case.
Between 16 December 2020 and 20 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord three times. His emails alleged that the landlord had an agenda to force him out of his flat, said that it should not be getting involved in petty disputes and threatening eviction, and said he was taking court action regarding the landlord’s failure to address his ASB reports. In an email dated 18 December 2020 the resident said that the landlord had refused to address his neighbour’s unauthorised opening of his mail and on 20 December 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to make an “official” complaint about this.
Between 23 December 2020 and 31 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord six times reporting further issues with his neighbour’s use of rubbish bins and alleging that the landlord’s staff were related to his neighbour and gave them preferential treatment. On 31 December 2020 he said that he wanted to make a further complaint about the landlord’s staff. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s emails and opened a new complaint case.
On 4 January 2021 the landlord provided its response to the resident’s complaint about roof repairs not being done because his neighbour had locked their gate before going away. The landlord said that its contractor had confirmed that it had done the roof repair and that the landlord had investigated the resident’s allegation that his neighbours were not living in their flat but was satisfied that they were.
On the same day, the landlord emailed the resident confirming which of his complaints had completed its internal process, saying it had not logged his report of missing mail as a complaint and asking him if he wanted it to do so. The resident replied confirming that he did and saying that it was a serious matter. He listed nine other serious matters which he felt the landlord was not concerned about including being unable to walk around the “grounds” of his home, dry his washing and being threatened with eviction.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 January 2021 to say it had opened an ASB case and the investigating officer would contact him within five working days. The resident sent the landlord further emails giving examples of post that he had not received, saying his neighbour must have taken them and making further allegations that staff members were related to his neighbour and had “taken sides” with them against him.
The evidence suggests that the landlord telephoned the resident on 8 January 2021 to discuss his reports of missing mail. The landlord subsequently emailed the resident on 11 January 2021 saying that the call had not been “productive” and asking for the resident’s cooperation in investigating his allegations.
The resident sent at least six further emails to the landlord between 12 January 2021 and 18 January 2021 asking what action it would take in response to his reports of missing mail and other ASB. The landlord responded on 19 January 2021 saying there was an open ASB case and it would investigate his reports. It summarised the outcome of the resident’s previous reports and complaints that it had already investigated.
The resident sent three emails to the landlord on 20 January 2021 and one on 21 January 2021 saying that his neighbour was leaving their windows open which he felt compromised his security, and that the landlord should ignore his neighbour’s lies about him and give an equal service.
On 21 January 2021 the landlord provided its response to the complaints raised by the resident over Christmas 2020 and said that:
1. It had investigated his report that his neighbours had left their bins in his garden and found the bins had been put there by its contractor. The neighbour had not been able to move them until Christmas Day due to covid-19 isolation and had made him aware of this at the time.
2. It had responded to his complaint about him being given a tenancy warning previously and would not comment further.
3. It had investigated his concerns about familial relationships between his neighbour and staff and had previously assured him there were none. It would not comment further on the matter. Further, none of the officers investigating his reports had involvement in the allocation of homes.
4. The resident had raised other issues which the landlord had previously responded to and had not allowed sufficient time for the landlord to respond before escalating his complaints.
Between 21 January 2021 and 24 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord four times saying he believed that he was being deliberately pushed out of his home due to his race, that he had been unfairly accused of harassment and that the landlord had not adequately addressed his various reports about his neighbour or his complaints. The landlord replied that it has passed his reports of ASB and missing mail to the relevant officer and that they would call him.
On 25 January 2021 the landlord telephoned the resident to discuss his reports of missing mail. The resident said that he had taken the contents of his neighbour’s bin and had asked the police to check them for his missing mail. The landlord’s case notes say that the resident ended the call.
The resident sent eleven emails to the landlord between 28 January 2021 and 6 February 2021 about his missing mail, alleging close relationships between staff members and his neighbour, and asked the landlord to provide individual mailboxes. In an email dated 3 February 2021 the resident attached photographs of handwritten notes he had given to his neighbour accusing them of stealing his mail.
On 11 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord saying that his neighbour had gone to live with relatives and asking the landlord to review their tenancy. The landlord responded the same day saying it was aware of the neighbour’s absence and was satisfied it was not a breach of their tenancy conditions.
The evidence shows that the police visited the resident and his neighbour on 14 February 2021 following reports made by the neighbour about the resident’s behaviour.
The resident sent further emails to the landlord between 17 February 2021 and 5 March 2021 asking for individual letterboxes to be installed, calling his neighbours “liars and thieves”, and making further reports of their behaviour. On 5 March 2021 the landlord raised an order for individual mailboxes to be installed.
Between 10 March 2021 and 4 May 2021, the resident sent further emails to the landlord making similar allegations as before and saying that the landlord was ignoring his reports. He said that he planned to take legal action against the landlord and his neighbour.
On 11 May 2021 the resident made another formal complaint saying that he was not satisfied with the mailbox that its contractor had tried to install that day as it was too small and not sufficiently secure. The landlord acknowledged his complaint and said it would respond within 15 working days.
The landlord provided its response to the resident’s complaint about the specification of the mailbox on 2 June 2021 saying that the mailboxes were a standard specification and that it would arrange to install them. It said that the resident must not prevent its contractor from fitting the mailboxes. The resident replied the same day saying that he had not prevented the contractor from fitting them previously and that the landlord was not accepting responsibility for the theft of his mail. The evidence suggests the mailboxes were installed on 2 August 2021.
On 7 September 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord making a freedom of information (FOI) request which asked the landlord to answer 50 questions. They included questions about whether the landlord was trying to repossess or cause him to vacate his flat, when reports of harassment or ASB had been made against him, and whether the landlord had instructed anyone to take his mail.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 October 2021 saying that the landlord had instructed his neighbours to report him to the police and landlord, had sent letters threatening to evict him and was trying to make him give up his tenancy.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 12 November 2021 saying he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses to his reports of ASB and his complaints and had received further threats of eviction. The resident subsequently sent the Ombudsman emails setting out why he believed the landlord was trying to evict him and sent further emails to the landlord about its investigation into the theft of his mail and chasing responses to his various complaints.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 November 2021 saying that it had previously asked him to provide evidence to support his allegations that his neighbour and its staff were stealing his mail but he had not done so. It acknowledged that the investigating officer had not updated him as frequently as agreed but had provided periodic updates. The landlord said that no action could be taken without evidence to support his allegations, it had fitted individual mailboxes to resolve the issue and the ASB case was closed. It denied his allegations that its staff had stolen his mail or been involved in the police investigation against him.
Between 3 December 2021 and 16 December 2021, the resident continued to email the landlord about its response to the theft of his mail, asking for further responses to his complaints and alleging that the landlord was trying to harass him out of his home.
On 16 December 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident saying it considered the contents of an email he had sent on 8 December 2021 had been inappropriate. It said it had advised him previously about “unacceptable, insulting and intimidating” communications directed to its staff and asked for his cooperation.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 17 December 2021 saying that the resident had shouted at staff over the telephone and that “the nature of your verbal assault is a form of abuse and will not be tolerated”. It asked him not to contact the officer in question and said it may consider enforcement action if he continued to do so. The landlord said that it had not been able to comply with orders made by the Ombudsman (case 202118753) as the resident had refused to make an appointment and that his repeated complaints about the same issues were placing unreasonable demands on its service. It asked him to stop and said it would consider action in relation to his tenancy if he did not.
The resident and landlord exchanged several emails on 20 December 2021. The resident said that the landlord had broken into his shed and changed the locks in July 2021 and the landlord said that it had responded to his query at the time and that it had no knowledge of the locks being changed.
The landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints about its response to his ASB reports and allegations that it was trying to evict him on 22 December 2021 saying:
1. It had sent him a tenancy warning letter on 26 October 2020. The warning was not a threat of eviction but was issued to give advice to avoid further action being needed. It said it had responded to his complaint about being given the tenancy warning previously and would not comment further.
2. It had investigated his allegations of his neighbour stealing his mail and that its staff had been involved and found no evidence to support his claims. It would not investigate the matter further.
3. It had found no fault in the way it had managed his complaints.
The resident subsequently asked the Ombudsman to investigate as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
Following the end of the landlord’s complaint process the resident continued to email the landlord about its response to his reports of mail theft, his belief it wanted to evict him, and various other matters. He also made further complaints and reported the landlord to the serious fraud office on 5 January 2022 alleging widespread fraud to repossess underoccupied properties to secure additional government funding.
Relevant responses by the landlord were on:
1. 4 January 2022 saying it had found no evidence that his neighbour had been stealing mail and had provided separate mailboxes in August 2021. It had advised him of the closure of his ASB and responded to a complaint he had made about the closure.
2. 18 March 2022 responding to his FOI request of 7 September 2021 saying it had advised him previously the request did not meet the FOI criteria but it would respond to his questions. In responding to the matters relating to this case the landlord confirmed it did not consider him to be under occupying his flat, had no aim to cause him to leave his home and had not put him on notice that it intended to take possession proceedings. It confirmed the dates it had received reports made against him for ASB and harassment and referred him to the letters it had sent to him at the times these had been received. The landlord also confirmed that it had investigated his allegations of mail theft but not found any evidence to support them and said that its staff had no involvement in any collusion to steal his mail.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.

Handling of the resident’s reports of anti–social behaviour (ASB).

The evidence shows that the resident made multiple reports about his neighbour to the landlord between 6 March 2020 and 10 March 2022. Some of the reports he made would not be considered as ASB under the landlord’s policy. However, the evidence shows that the landlord responded appropriately by investigating his reports and providing responses. For example, the resident made several reports that his neighbour was not occupying their home. Although this was not considered to be ASB, it could be a breach of tenancy conditions and the landlord appropriately investigated each report the resident made and told the resident the outcome of its investigations.
The reports made by the resident about misuse of rubbish bins, noise and his allegations of mail theft did warrant investigation under the landlord’s ASB policy and the evidence shows that the landlord appropriately opened ASB cases, triaged the reports and investigated. For example, after opening an ASB case about the resident’s allegations of mail theft on 5 January 2021, the landlord contacted the resident on 8 January 2021 to gather further information.
The evidence suggests that the landlord’s attempts to investigate all the reports that the resident made against his neighbour were limited on occasion by the resident’s responses. For example, the landlord attempted to gather further information about the resident’s reports of mail theft during two telephone calls and the evidence suggests that the calls did not result in the resident providing the details that the landlord asked him for.
Although the landlord’s ASB policy says it will apply the civil standard of proof when considering evidence, it still needs some evidence to consider. In this case the resident was not able to provide any evidence to support his allegations that his neighbour was responsible for his missing mail. As such, it was appropriate that the landlord concluded that it was not able to prove that the neighbour had breached their tenancy conditions and that it could not take any enforcement action.
It was reasonable that the landlord decided to install individual mailboxes as the resident had asked but they were not fitted until six months later on 2 August 2021. Although it is acknowledged that the resident’s objections to the specification of the mailboxes on 11 May 2021 caused some of the delay, the landlord may have avoided subsequent correspondence and complaints from the resident if it had provided the mailboxes sooner. However, as the landlord had no obligation to provide the mailboxes, the delay does not amount to a service failure.
The evidence suggests that the resident’s reports of other potential ASB including noise of banging doors and loud voices, and misuse of bins were also investigated and handled appropriately by the landlord. The evidence shows that the landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour where it was necessary and provided the resident with appropriate responses on the outcomes of its investigations.
For the reasons set out above, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Handling of the resident’s allegations that it was trying to evict him.

The evidence shows that the landlord warned the resident about his behaviour towards his neighbour and its staff on several occasions.
The landlord’s decision to issue a tenancy warning on 26 October 2020 was reasonable given it had received reports from the resident’s neighbour about behaviour which could meet the criteria of ASB under its ASB policy. Its letter appropriately explained the reports it had received, the evidence it had seen and the effect of the behaviour on the resident’s neighbour. The letter appropriately referred to the relevant tenancy conditions that the resident may have been in breach of and it was reasonable that the landlord asked the resident to stop any behaviour that was in breach of his tenancy conditions.
The landlord’s ASB procedure does not specify any appeal process for residents against a tenancy warning or include any provisions for a warning to be reviewed. This means that residents may be left in perpetuity believing that their tenancy is at risk and only have a route to challenge the landlord’s decision through its complaint process. The absence of a review process also means that the landlord may miss the opportunity to consider taking further action if a tenancy warning has not had the desired effect. The landlord should consider reviewing its procedure to include an appeal and review process.
The evidence shows that the resident made multiple allegations about the conduct of the landlord’s staff members including alleging they were related to his neighbours, had been involved in the theft of his mail and were involved in fraud. The Ombudsman has reviewed the resident’s communications with the landlord and considers it was reasonable for the landlord to have concluded that some of them met the definition of harassment within its tenancy conditions.
It was reasonable that the landlord challenged the resident’s behaviour and statements he made where it considered them to have met its definition of harassment and/or ASB. It was also reasonable that the landlord made the resident aware of the breaches of his tenancy conditions and potential for it to take further action should his behaviour continue in its letter of 17 December 2021.
The landlord clarified to the resident on at least four occasions that its reminders of his tenancy conditions and it’s warnings of potential further action if his behaviour continued were not threats of eviction. It also confirmed in its letter of 18 March 2022 that it did not consider him to be under-occupying his home and had taken no steps towards repossessing his flat.
Having seen the landlord’s correspondence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has not made threats to evict the resident and that it has confirmed this to the resident on several occasions.
For the reasons set out above, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s allegations that it was trying to evict him.

Handling of the resident’s complaints.

The Ombudsman understands that handling multiple complaints from a resident about similar issues and over the same time periods can be a challenge for landlords, not least in deciding whether to open a new complaint or add the issues to an existing one. The evidence in this case shows the resident made over130 contacts regarding his complaints between 11 October 2020 and 18 March 2022 many of which were lengthy and contained multiple issues. For example, his email of 7 September 2021 which included 50 questions for the landlord to answer.
The evidence suggests that it was difficult for the landlord to keep track of the resident’s various complaints. For example, the landlord had added his complaint of 30 October 2020 about being given a tenancy warning to an existing complaint he had made about being warned about his behaviour in a complaint response. Although the landlord referred to both issues in its final response to that complaint on 14 December 2020, it had not addressed the issue of the tenancy warning in its stage one response of 12 November 2020. This meant that it took the landlord 31 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint about being given a tenancy warning.
Similarly, the evidence suggests that the resident found it difficult to keep track of his complaints at times as on 13 May 2021 he had emailed the landlord to ask what complaint it had acknowledged on that day commenting there “are so many presently ongoing”.
Despite the volume of complaints made by the resident, the evidence shows the landlord responded appropriately and within its policy timescales to most of the resident’s contacts and all his formal complaints except for his complaint about being given a tenancy warning letter. The landlord could have considered applying its unreasonable complainant policy to the resident but did not do so which suggests it was committed to continuing to engage with him. However, given the amount of correspondence from the resident, applying the policy would have been a reasonable step for the landlord to take.
It was reasonable that the landlord investigated the resident’s allegations that its staff members were related to his neighbour and given them preferential treatment given that no evidence had been provided to support the allegations. It was also reasonable that the landlord told the resident of the investigation outcome in its complaint response of 14 December 2020.
The landlord also wrote to the resident on several occasions to confirm where his various complaints were in its process. For example, its letter of 4 January 2021. However, it would have been clearer to the resident and landlord if the landlord had said in its correspondence what the complaint was about as well as giving the case reference numbers.
Although the resident’s email of 20 December 2020 was marked as an “official complaint about mail being intercepted”, it had been sent using a reference number for a different complaint and it was reasonable that the landlord sought to clarify what resolution the resident was seeking on 4 January 2021. It was also reasonable that the landlord opened an ASB case when the resident clarified that he suspected his neighbour of taking his post.
Some of the landlord’s complaint responses incorrectly signposted the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) rather than this service. This can be a common issue with local authority landlords that deliver services that fall under the jurisdiction of both Ombudsman services and there is no evidence that there was detriment to the resident in this case but the landlord should take steps to ensure it signposts to the correct service in future.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about being given a tenancy warning letter did not meet its policy timescales and the landlord incorrectly signposted the resident to the LGSCO on some occasions. However, the Ombudsman acknowledges the challenges of dealing with the high volume of contacts and complaints in this case and does not consider that this amounts to service failure by the landlord.
For the reasons set out above, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
2. Allegations that it was trying to evict him.
3. Complaints.

Reasons

The evidence shows that the landlord appropriately investigated and responded to the reports of ASB made by the resident.
Having seen the landlord’s correspondence the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has not made threats to evict the resident and that it has confirmed this to the resident on several occasions.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the challenges of dealing with the high volume of contacts and complaints in this case and does not consider that the late response to one of the resident’s complaints and its incorrect signposting to the LGSCO amount to service failure by the landlord.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Review its ASB procedure to include appeal and review processes when it issues tenancy warnings.
2. Take steps to ensure it signposts residents to the correct Ombudsman service.