We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Birmingham City Council (202403026)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403026

Birmingham City Council

30 July 2025

Updated 10 October 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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since January 2022. The property is a ground floor flat in a block. The landlord is a local authority and has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The landlord’s records show the resident first reported ASB on 24 June 2022. She said the neighbour living in the flat above her was involved in criminal behaviour including drug use and prostitution. The landlord opened an ASB case the same day. It completed a risk assessment based on the information she gave. It decided the case was medium risk.
  3. The landlord visited the resident’s neighbour on 22 August 2022. It told her about the allegations of ASB it had received. It told her it would monitor the situation.
  4. The landlord held a meeting with the resident and the police on 12 December 2022. The resident repeated her earlier allegations and said her neighbour had subjected her to racist abuse. The landlord agreed an ASB action plan at the meeting.
  5. After consulting further with the police, the landlord sent the resident’s neighbour an ASB warning letter on 18 January 2023. It met with the resident on 2 February 2023 and told her it would progress with enforcement action if the ASB persisted. It installed noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s flat in February 2023. 
  6. The landlord issued a notice of seeking possession (NOSP) to the resident’s neighbour on 7 August 2023. The resident also attended a public meeting with the landlord’s directors and the Housing Ombudsman the same day. She explained that the ASB was having a negative impact on her.
  7. The landlord completed an ASB case review on 19 January 2024. It did not consider the evidence it held to be sufficient to progress the case to court.
  8. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 21 May 2024. She was unhappy the landlord had not resolved the ASB issues. She said she was experiencing sleep deprivation because of the noise from her neighbour. She also feared for her safety. She said the police had told her the landlord could have been more proactive in progressing the case to court.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 June 2024. It said it had conducted a joint meeting with the police at the block on 23 April 2024. It gathered statements from residents and considered the resident’s video evidence. The landlord could not take further action because its evidence and that held by the police was not sufficient for it to do so.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 20 June 2024. She felt the landlord had dismissed her evidence. She said the police had told her the landlord had enough evidence to take her neighbour to court. She also said the instances of ASB had increased since the landlord issued the NOSP. 
  11. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 4 July 2024. It repeated its position that it did not have sufficient evidence to proceed to court. It told the resident that:
    1. No new witnesses came forward after the ASB survey it sent to the block in October 2023.
    2. As the photographs she provided in November 2023 did not show car registration plates or identify drivers it could not use those as evidence.
    3. It had listened to the noise recordings she provided in December 2023 but did not consider them to constitute noise nuisance.
    4. It apologised that its communication throughout the ASB case had fallen below the standard it expected of itself.
    5. It had decided to award her £1,000 compensation for the distress caused by its poor communication.
    6. It would work with her to bring the ASB case to a resolution.
  12. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 28 October 2024. She did not feel the landlord had taken her concerns about ASB seriously. She wanted the landlord to pursue action against her neighbour.
  13. The landlord closed the ASB case on 5 November 2024. The reason for closure was that it did not consider the noise recordings the resident provided to be ASB. The resident has not raised issues of ASB since the closure of the ASB case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated that she started reporting ASB in December 2021, before she moved into the property. She also said she continued to report ASB in the first half of 2022. Neither the resident nor the landlord has provided evidence to show ASB was reported prior to June 2022. For that reason our investigation focuses on the period from when the landlord opened the ASB case in June 2022.
  2. It is important to explain that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether an incident amounts to ASB or whether ASB had occurred. Instead it is the role of this Service to consider the actions taken by the landlord when reports of alleged ASB have been made to it and to decide whether those actions were appropriate or reasonable in the circumstances.

Landlord’s response to reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s tenant’s handbook assures residents it considers ASB a high priority. It says it will investigate reports of ASB and agree an action plan with the resident who makes the report. In cases where there has not been violence it aims to speak with residents within 5 to 10 working days of their report. An action plan should be confirmed in writing and include a plan for frequency of future contact.
  2. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it will record all ASB cases electronically. It should update the records after it takes a new action and upload any documentation that supports the case. When monitoring an ASB case the landlord should keep regular contact with the complainant. It should also hold regular meetings about the ASB case. Where relevant these meetings may be attended by other agencies such as the police.
  3. The landlord says it will first attempt to help the alleged perpetrator change their behaviour through warnings or voluntary agreements such as acceptable behaviour contracts. If the ASB persists it will proceed with legal proceedings. To take legal action it must complete a proportionality assessment.
  4. When it closes an ASB case the landlord should notify the complainant in writing of the closure and include details of the actions taken to resolve the case. It says that on some occasions it will conclude an ASB case without a satisfactory resolution to the original complainant. In those cases, it must be satisfied the investigation was thorough and there are no other options available to it.
  5. The evidence shows that the landlord’s response in June 2022 relating to the resident’s ASB reports reflected the seriousness of the allegations she had made. It was appropriate that it conducted a risk assessment. However, in not contacting the resident within 10 working days to agree an action plan it did not follow its procedure.
  6. It was appropriate that the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour on 22 August 2022 to tell her about the allegations of ASB. It was proportionate the outcome of that visit was that it told her it would monitor the situation. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to show why it took almost 2 months to visit the resident’s neighbour. Given it had assessed the case as medium risk it should have acted sooner to speak with the neighbour.
  7. The landlord showed it was following its ASB procedure when it held a meeting with the resident and the police on 12 December 2022. While it was appropriate the landlord put right its earlier failing and agreed an ASB action plan at the meeting it failed to agree a frequency of contact with the resident. That was not in line with its ASB procedure. Had it done so it could have avoided the communication failings that it highlighted in its stage 2 response.
  8. When the landlord sent the resident’s neighbour an ASB warning letter in January 2023 it showed it was following its ASB procedure in working with the police to consider the evidence of ASB. It demonstrated to the resident it was taking her reports of ASB seriously.
  9. The landlord met with the resident on 2 February 2023 and told her it would progress with enforcement action if the ASB persisted. It explained the NOSP process to her during that meeting. It installed noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s flat in February 2023. Those actions were appropriate and compliant with its policy and procedures.
  10. The landlord provided limited evidence to show what contact it received and what actions it took between March and July 2023. In its stage 2 response it told the resident e-mails from her from January to March 2023 referred to some telephone contact but it did not hold details of those conversations. It also assessed some noise recordings provided by the resident and found no excessive noise. It is not appropriate that it does not hold information about when it considered those noise recordings or details of the telephone calls with her. In not keeping accurate records after each action was taken it was not following its own ASB procedure. There were also instances where it failed to respond to her in April 2023. Its approach between March and July 2023 did not demonstrate to the resident that it was taking her concerns about ASB seriously.
  11. When the landlord sent the resident’s neighbour a NOSP in August 2023 it noted that its reason for taking that action was due to the volume of ASB complaints from the resident. It is not appropriate that the landlord has no record of the resident’s contact from that time. Again, in not holding records of her contact it did not follow its ASB procedure. It was at the landlord’s discretion to issue a NOSP to the neighbour when it saw fit. As it had previously explained the NOSP process to the resident it is reasonable to expect it explained that it would need to build a strong case to progress the case to court.
  12. The landlord sent an ASB survey to the whole block sometime in October 2023 but no new witnesses came forward. It agreed to install noise recording equipment in the resident’s home for a second time the same month. It also approached the police to request information about the ASB to establish whether it could progress any enforcement action. Those actions were all appropriate and showed it was taking the resident’s ASB concerns seriously. The police responded and the landlord decided the evidence did not meet the threshold to take the case to court. It was not appropriate that there is no record it told the resident about that. It missed an opportunity to manage her expectations.
  13. The resident provided photographic evidence on 21 November 2023. It was appropriate the landlord considered that evidence. It established that the pictures did not identify registration plates or drivers so it could not act on that evidence. Again, there is no evidence it told her about that until its stage 2 response over 7 months later. That was not appropriate as it missed another opportunity to manage her expectations.
  14. When the resident submitted noise recordings in December 2023 it was appropriate that the landlord wrote to her on 23 December 2023 to confirm it had received them. It was reasonable it told her it had not had the opportunity to listen to all the recordings due to the volume she had provided. However, it was not reasonable that it did not provide her with confirmation it had examined all the recordings and did not consider them to constitute noise nuisance until its stage 2 response. In not keeping her updated it did not show her that it was investigating her concerns. That was also not in line with its ASB procedure.
  15. The resident reported the ASB was ongoing 3 times between January and February 2024. While it was appropriate the landlord arranged to meet with her to discuss her concerns on 13 March 2024 it should have been more proactive in responding. It also has not provided evidence to show it had been regularly updating her or holding regular meetings about the ASB. Further to that, the meeting was cancelled due to an emergency outside its control. While its reason for cancelling the meeting may have been reasonable it was not appropriate it did not notify the resident until the next day.
  16. It was appropriate the landlord put things right quickly and visited the resident at her home on 20 March 2024. The landlord told her it had requested evidence from the police and asked to meet with the investigating officer. That showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and trying to progress the ASB case. Given the impact she said the ASB was having it was also reasonable that it discussed an exceptional needs move with her. The resident did not want to take up that option.
  17. The landlord’s actions in April 2024 were reasonable. It conducted a joint visit with the police in the communal area of the block to try and gather further evidence to support the ASB case. While some further evidence was received during that visit neither the landlord nor the police felt it was sufficient to take further action on. The landlord also considered the resident’s video evidence around that time and found it only showed visitors walking past her door. As such it did not consider it evidence of ASB.
  18. While the landlord took some steps in response to the ASB by offering mediation and asking the resident to install the noise app during its stage 1 investigation its overall approach was not reasonable. It did not consider the length of time the ASB case had been open for or whether it had followed its ASB procedure. In only providing a recent update in its response and an explanation that the evidence was not sufficient to proceed to court it did not show it had adequately investigated the resident’s concerns.
  19. The landlord improved its approach at stage 2. It provided a lengthy response which outlined all the action it had taken since the ASB case was opened in June 2022. It was also accountable for the communication failings with the resident. It accepted it should have updated her more than it did. It was reasonable that it awarded her £1,000 for those failings. As it did not consider the evidence sufficient enough to proceed to court it was unable to provide the resident with her desired outcome.
  20. The resident said at both stages of her complaint the police had told her the landlord had enough evidence to progress the NOSP. She did not provide evidence to show when it had told her that and the evidence supplied by the landlord includes its discussions with the police. There is no evidence the police considered the landlord to have enough evidence to take court action. In addition to that it is at the landlord’s discretion whether it considers the evidence it holds to be sufficient to take an ASB case to court.
  21. The landlord was entitled to close the ASB case because it was satisfied its investigation was thorough and there were no other options available to it. It followed its procedure in notifying the resident of the closure and its reasons for doing so. It explained to her that the noise recordings she had provided related to low-level noise that would be expected in multi-storey accommodation. It said there were some isolated incidents for which it had issued the appropriate warnings to the neighbour at the time.
  22. Aside from some delays when it first opened the ASB case the landlord’s actions in respect of the ASB have been reasonable and proportionate. It had spoken with the resident’s neighbour, worked with the police, interviewed neighbours and considered the evidence the resident provided. It had been clear with the resident since its stage 1 response that the evidence she provided did not meet the threshold for civil action against her neighbour. It also listened to the noise recordings provided and sought a second opinion from an additional member of staff not related to the ASB case.
  23. However, the landlord’s approach to communicating with the resident and updating its records was not reasonable. It did not follow its own ASB procedure in not maintaining records of contact or the actions it had taken. In not doing so it failed to reassure the resident it was taking action. Its poor communication meant that it missed opportunities to understand the effect the reported ASB was having on the resident. It also missed opportunities to manage her expectations earlier that the evidence it held was not sufficient to proceed to her desired outcome of taking the case to court.
  24. The landlord’s poor record keeping as highlighted in this report contributed to its poor communication with the resident. That undoubtably caused her distress and inconvenience. However, as the evidence she provided has not met the threshold for court, the landlord’s inaction has not negatively impacted the ASB case. It progressed the case as far as it could under its ASB procedure. The landlord’s communication failings would usually amount to a determination of maladministration.
  25. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response and investigation were thorough. It was accountable for its communication failings which arose from its poor record keeping and failure to follow its procedure. It apologised for its poor communication. It also awarded the resident £1,000 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience she experienced as a result of it not providing the standard of service she should have expected to receive. We have considered that amount against our remedies guidance where we would normally award up to £600 for a maladministration determination.
  26. While we appreciate that living with ASB can be challenging and stressing for residents our investigation has focused on the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB and whether it went far enough to address its failings. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s accountability for its communication failings and compensation award at stage 2 went far enough in putting things right. It is also noted since the landlord closed the ASB case the resident has not reported further ASB. For those reasons, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress regarding its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress regarding its response to reports of ASB.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £1,000 it awarded in its stage 2 response, if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord should consider arranging refresher training for its staff on following its ASB procedure regarding accurate record keeping and customer contact in ASB cases.
  3. Appoint a single point of contact for the resident and contact her to discuss the ongoing ASB she continues to experience.
  4. The landlord should ensure the resident’s broken window is repaired within its published repair timescales.