From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Birmingham City Council (202323103)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323103

Birmingham City Council

11 September 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 the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom house and he has lived there with his wife since 1968. The landlord has recorded that the resident has physical vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord about ASB by the resident’s neighbour on 3 February 2022. The landlord recorded this as an enquiry and responded on 28 June 2022 confirming it had since completed a home visit. On 6 October 2022, the MP asked for this to be escalated, and the landlord sent a stage 2 response on 12 October 2022, in which it said:
    1. noise monitoring equipment was installed on 21 July 2022 and recordings were taken over a 2-week period – no statutory noise nuisance was detected
    2. a home visit to the neighbour took place on 4 August 2022 – there was low level music but this was within the permitted level
    3. its Mediation team had worked with the resident between June and September 2022 to provide a coaching and wellbeing service
    4. as there was no evidence of a noise nuisance, there was no tenancy breach and it would not be taking further action
  3. The resident contacted us on 5 October 2023 as he was unhappy with the ongoing issue with his neighbour. We contacted the landlord on 3 November 2023 and asked it to raise a new complaint. It sent a stage 1 response on 22 November 2023, in which it said:
    1. it would carry out an out of policy repair to fit soft door closures to the neighbour’s property
    2. noise equipment had been installed twice, with no excessive noise recorded – no new type of noise had been reported since
    3. it had completed an area survey and spoken with the other adjoining neighbour, and no other noise was reported
    4. it had installed new fence panels where some had been damaged between the resident’s and the neighbour’s properties – it apologised for the delay in doing this and offered £40 compensation to recognise this
    5. it had investigated to see if tapping noises were caused by an issue with water pipes, however no issues had been found – the neighbour’s boiler was found to be making some noise and a repair was carried out
  4. The resident contacted us on 27 February 2024. He said he had spoken to the landlord on 29 November 2023 to request escalation and had not had a stage 2 response. We wrote to the landlord on 27 February 2024 and asked it to respond. It sent its stage 2 response on 4 March 2024, in which it said:
    1. it could not find any record of the resident calling on 29 November 2023 – it said it had spoken to him on 27 November 2023 but he had not discussed escalating the complaint
    2. its stage 1 response had fully investigated matters and confirmed the noise levels did not meet the legal threshold to take further action
  5. The resident contacted us again on 19 April 2024. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate. He said he wanted the landlord to take action.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident raised an earlier complaint about ASB in 2020, which the landlord responded to on 9 December 2022. We have seen no evidence the resident asked for this complaint to be escalated or referred the complaint to this Service.
  2. The resident’s MP raised a complaint on his behalf in February 2022, and the landlord sent its stage 2 response to this on 12 October 2022. The resident first contacted us on 5 October 2023, within 12 months of this stage 2 response. Therefore, in accordance with the Scheme, the resident referred this complaint to our Service in time.
  3. The historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint. However, this investigation has only considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from February 2021, 12 months before this complaint was raised, until its most recent stage 2 response of 4 March 2024.
  4. The resident has raised concerns about his wife’s health and the impact on this by the issues raised. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages.
  5. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

ASB

  1. The situation was clearly distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that he does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB. Our role is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish 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, and whether there were any failings that caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will treat reports of ASB promptly, seriously, professionally, and effectively by:
    1. encouraging and supporting residents to be involved in remedying ASB by using the tools and technology available
    2. assessing the ASB reported to it and taking action in accordance with its service standards
    3. fully investigating the complaint, which will usually involve interviewing alleged perpetrators and may involve interviewing third party witnesses
    4. referring cases between the different departments of the Council and to other agencies, as necessary
    5. explaining its reasons if it is unable to take action, and suggest other alternative courses of action
  3. On 8 February 2021, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord to raise a complaint about excessive noise. The landlord sent a response on 9 March 2021, however it has not given us a copy of this response. We have seen no evidence the resident asked the landlord to escalate matters at that time.
  4. The landlord referred the resident and his wife for community coaching on 23 July 2021, which was a reasonable step. On 3 August 2021, the resident’s MP reported further noise nuisance and the landlord installed noise monitoring equipment on 12 August 2021. The landlord reviewed recordings, which did not pick up any excessive noise. The landlord explained this to the resident over the phone on 29 September 2021. These were reasonable actions by the landlord.
  5. The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 3 February 2022. It has not given us a copy of this letter so we do not know what specific issues the resident raised. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 March 2022 confirming an ASB action plan, following his report of excessive dog barking and noise. The landlord said that it would contact the neighbour and asked the resident to continue to report dog barking to its Environmental Services team. These actions were reasonable and in line with its policy.
  6. On 29 March 2022, the landlord wrote to other local residents and asked if wrote anyone had experienced any ASB. It spoke to a tenant who lived in the property adjoining the other side of the neighbour. They said the neighbour had not disturbed them and they had not heard any excessive noise. These were reasonable actions in line with its policy and showed it took the reports seriously and looked at all options to gather evidence.
  7. On 28 June 2022, the landlord contacted the resident’s MP to say that it had visited the resident, and it apologised for the delayed response. At this stage it treated the MP’s correspondence as an enquiry rather than a complaint. As we have not seen the correspondence, we cannot say this was unreasonable.
  8. On 15 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to say it had closed the ASB case. It confirmed that it had installed noise recording equipment, but this had not provided any evidence to support it taking further action. It said it had referred the resident and the neighbour to its mediation service. These were reasonable actions in line with its policy.
  9. The resident’s MP asked the landlord to escalate matters on 6 October 2022. Again, we have not seen a copy of this request, so we do not know what issues the resident felt were outstanding. The landlord said it had installed noise monitoring equipment on 21 July 2022 and it analysed recordings taken over a 2-week period. It had also visited the neighbour unannounced on 4 August 2022. It said it could hear music through open windows but the volume was within the permitted level, so it could not take further action.
  10. The landlord said its Mediation team had worked with the resident to provide a coaching and wellbeing service between 22 June and 10 September 2022. The landlord’s response was reasonable based on the evidence available. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord again on 23 November 2022. The landlord responded on 7 December 2022 to confirm it had not identified any statutory noise nuisance.
  11. On 5 June 2023, the resident told the landlord the noise problem was ongoing and the landlord ask him to complete diary sheets, which it collected on 30 June 2023. It reviewed the sheets on 4 July 2023 and noted that all entries related to household noise and occasional door slamming.
  12. The landlord visited the resident on 5 July 2023 and explained that the noise was the same as previously reported and that recordings had not evidence the noise. It agreed to investigate whether tapping noises were coming from pipes, which was a positive response, demonstrating it was investigating the resident’s concerns and looking for solutions. On 7 July 2023, its investigation found no issues with pipes, but the neighbour’s boiler was making some noise and it carried out a repair.
  13. The resident contacted us on 5 October 2023. He told us he was experiencing ongoing problems with his ‘abusive neighbour,’ as well as banging from pipes. We wrote to the landlord on 3 November 2023 and asked it to raise a new complaint for the resident.
  14. The landlord’s internal records of 17 November 2023 said that it would install soft door closures to the neighbour’s property, outside of its usual policy. It told the resident it would do this in its stage 1 response of 22 November 2023. It said the resident had given it diary sheets and it had reviewed noise recordings and it found no evidence to support his noise complaint, so it closed the case. It confirmed it had again referred the resident to mediation on 27 July 2023. These were reasonable actions in line with its policy, based on the evidence available.
  15. The landlord apologised in its response for its delay in repairing the fence between his and the neighbour’s property and offered £40 compensation for this. Taking into account the available evidence the landlord’s response was reasonable as it had investigated the noise reports in line with its policy.
  16. The resident contacted this Service on 27 February 2024 to say he had not received a stage 2 response. He told us he had contacted a member of staff at the landlord on their mobile on 29 November 2023, which he had from a previous conversation, and asked for the complaint to be escalated. The landlord confirmed it could not find any record of this call. As we have seen no evidence of this call we cannot say that this was a failing by the landlord.
  17. On 27 February 2024 we asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. It sent its stage 2 response on 4 March 2024, in which it said its stage 1 investigation was reasonable.
  18. The landlord’s internal records of 4 March 2024 show that the job to install soft door closures to the neighbour’s property was still outstanding. Its contractor attempted to install these on 22 March 2023, however the neighbour refused. As this installation was outside of the landlord’s policy, it is unlikely it would be able to enforce this installation. Although the landlord should not have delayed attempting to install these, it was the neighbour’s right to refuse this.
  19. The Ombudsman considers there to have been no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. We appreciate that the resident and his wife feel that the level of noise they are experiencing is unacceptable. However, for the landlord to take action, it must have evidence to support this.
  20. The landlord has provided the resident with noise recording equipment on several occasions to try to obtain evidence to support what he has recorded in diary sheets. However, the recordings did not show any noise other than usual household noise. It also completed reasonable investigations by contacting other residents, including another adjoining neighbour, who did not report hearing any noise. It was also reasonable for it to refer the resident for coaching and mediation.

Determination

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

Recommendation

  1. Given the resident’s reports of an ongoing noise issue, it is recommended that the landlord meets with him to discuss these issues and consider any options available to it to reduce noise transference between the properties.