Birmingham City Council (202403119)

Decision
Case ID	202403119
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Birmingham City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 March 2026

 

Background

1. The resident reported ongoing issues of anti-social behaviour (ASB),involving her neighbour, to the landlord. This included allegations that the neighbour had damaged her trellis, that they were storing commercial waste in the front garden next to the boundary hedge,burning commercial waste, and causing noise nuisance. In her complaint, the resident said the landlord had not taken sufficient action. She also said the landlord had disclosed information to the neighbour that had resulted in them retaliating by damaging her car.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

 

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

5. The landlord acknowledged a delay in a follow-up action. However, it did not acknowledge or recognise that it had not acted in line with its ASB procedure when it failed to carry out risk assessments, complete a complainant interview, and agree action plans. It also did not acknowledge that it closed a case and interviewed an alleged perpetrator without the resident’s agreement. It apologised to the resident, but this was not proportionate redress for the identified failings.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint either within the timeframes set within its complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

 

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 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident: £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by 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 April 2026

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 April 2024	Following our contact, the landlord logged a complaint about the resident’s reports of ASB. This included reports that her neighbour had stored and burnt commercial waste, broken her trellis, caused noise nuisance (dog barking), damaged her car, and stolen bins.
22 April 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response. It said it had investigated her reports of ASB. It said it told her during a telephone call on 29 February 2024 that the neighbour would remove the waste. It apologised as it had found that it had not made any follow up checks. It said it had not installed the trellis. However, it said it would arrange to either repair or remove it from the boundary hedge. It said it had offered to refer the resident and her neighbour to mediation. However, she had refused to engage as her car had been vandalised. It said she had not made any further reports of ASB since 29 February 2024 or provided further evidence of the damage. It said it had investigated the ASB in line with its policy and procedures and it re-offered mediation. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s complaint about dog barking had already exhausted its complaints process on 13 November 2023. It also said it had not investigated her reports about her bins as it was not aware of any issues. It asked her to report the theft to the police.
3 May 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said the landlord had apologised for mistakes and delays but it had not offered a solution or compensation to cover her costs. She said she believed that her neighbourhood officer had disclosed information to her neighbour which resulted in them causing damage to her car and harassing her. She said she did not want the neighbourhood officer dealing with her cases.
3 June 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response. It said it had sent her a compensation claim form on 2 May 2024 so she could claim out-of-pocket expenses for the damage to her car. It said it had not received the completed form, so it would email her a copy. It said it would have discussed all the resident’s allegations with her neighbour as part of the ASB investigation. It said it was reasonable to assume that the officer would not have disclosed any information that would have caused the neighbour to damage her car. It said it did not have sufficient proof that the neighbour caused the damage and it understood that the police had not taken any action. The landlord said it had asked the resident to complete diary sheets to help it assess her allegations of door slamming. It said she could also contact environmental health to request noise monitoring equipment. It said it had spoken to the neighbour about the allegations but, due to data protection legislation, it was unable to discuss its findings. It said it would work with the neighbour to resolve the issue by following its procedures. It said it would not allocate the resident a new officer as he had completed all the case notes in full and he had addressed all issues. The landlord said it visited the resident’s property on 8 May 2024 to inspect the damaged trellis. It said it would remove the trellis from the hedge. However, it said there was no evidence that the damaged trellis was caused by ASB. It also re-offered mediation to the resident.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said she wanted it to pay the costs she incurred due to the damage caused to her car.

 

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

7. It is not our role to establish whether the ASB reported by the resident happened, or whether the reported disturbances were a nuisance. Our role is to consider whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its legal and policy obligations, and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
8. The resident told us that she reported her neighbours to the landlord on 24 January 2024 as they were allegedly collecting commercial waste and storing it in their front garden, next to the boundary. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence of the resident’s report or its response. This raises concerns with its record keeping practices.
9. The resident reported her neighbours to environmental health on 28 January 2024 as they were allegedly burning rubbish between 8:30pm and 12:20am. Environmental Health confirmed that it appeared to be a one off incident. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided whether Environmental Health told the landlord about the report at the time of the incident. Therefore, we have been unable to assess whether it responded in line with its ASB procedure.
10. The resident told us that she contacted the landlord on 14 February 2024 to report that her neighbour had broken her trellis by storing commercial waste up against it. She also told us that the landlord visited her and her neighbour on 26 February 2024 to discuss the allegations. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence of the resident’s report, or details of the visits. This raises further concerns with its record keeping practices. We would expect a landlord to have robust records of the actions it took in response to reports of ASB, as this allows it to manage a case effectively. Detailed records also allow the landlord to provide answers when its actions are called into question. In this case, the lack of available records has affected our investigations as we are unable to draw conclusions on the outcome of the resident’s report and the landlord’s visits. We have also been unable to assess whether the landlord acted in line with its ASB procedure.
11. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 February 2024 and reported damage to her car. She made allegations that a member of her neighbour’s family had thrown a large rock which had smashed her windscreen and damaged her car bonnet. She said the cost of the damage amounted to £250 and she believed the damage was in retaliation to the landlord’s recent visit. She asked the landlord to pay her compensation. In response, the landlord opened an ASB case. However, there is no evidence that it took any further actions. This was not in line with its ASB procedure which says it will carry out a risk assessment, interview the complainant, and agree an action plan.
12. The landlord sent the resident an action plan update letter on 29 February 2024 in relation to the commercial waste case. This was in line with its ASB procedure. It confirmed that it had visited the resident on 26 February 2024 and that it had raised the allegations with the neighbour. It also confirmed that it had offered the resident mediation, but that she had refused due to the incident of damage to her car. The resident responded and told the landlord she had not received an initial action plan. She asked for a copy and she asked what its next course of action would be. However, there is no evidence to show that it responded to her email.
13. The landlord sent the resident an ASB case closure letter on 4 March 2024. This was in relation to the damage to her car. It said it was closing the case as it was a police matter and because the footage she provided did not identify the perpetrator. It said it had spoken to her neighbour and they had denied causing the damage. However, there is no evidence to show that the resident agreed to the case closure. This was not in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure which says it should agree case closures with the complainant.
14. The resident reported an incident involving her neighbour to the landlord on 30 April 2024. She attached recordings and sent the landlord an additional document reporting further incidents that we have not seen. This raises further concerns with the landlord’s record keeping practices. The resident has told us that this included incidents of noise nuisance from door slamming.
15. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 May 2024, as it had not responded to her allegations that the neighbour was slamming their doors. The landlord contacted the resident on 3 May 2024 and confirmed that it had reviewed her recordings. It said there was very little action it could take but it could provide diary sheets to log the noise. It also offered mediation. Although issuing diary sheets and offering mediation was in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure, there is no evidence to show that it had opened an ASB case, completed a risk assessment, or agreed an action plan.
16. The landlord did contact the resident’s neighbour on 3 May 2024 to discuss the allegations of slamming doors, which was in line with its ASB procedure. However, there is no evidence to show that the resident had agreed to this course of action. The ASB procedure says the landlord should interview the alleged perpetrator with the complainant’s agreement. This raises concerns with the landlord’s ASB practices and shows the importance of the landlord agreeing what actions it will take with the complainant in an action plan.
17. In its complaint responses the landlord appropriately apologised and acknowledged that it had delayed in completing a follow-up action. It agreed to remove the trellis, which it completed on 16 May 2024, and it sent the resident a claim form for compensation in relation to the damage to her car. It also made a commitment to work with the resident to resolve the noise case (door slamming). However, it did not acknowledge or recognise that it had not acted in line with its ASB procedure when it did not carry out risk assessments, complete a complainant interview, or agree action plans. It also did not acknowledge that it had not asked for the resident’s agreement to close a case or interview the alleged perpetrator.
18. The landlord did open an ASB case to deal with the allegations of the neighbour slamming doors. It also agreed to assign a new case officer. However, it closed the case a short time later without the resident’s agreement. The resident told us that the landlord did not respond to her compensation claim, although the ASB is now resolved.
19. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
20. Given the observations above, the landlord has not shown that it fully put things right through the complaints process. An apology alone was insufficient given the circumstances. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where the landlord has acknowledged failings and has made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

21. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint did not comply with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
22. The landlord raised a formal complaint on 2 April 2024 following contact from us. It sent the resident a stage 1 acknowledgement on 5 April 2024. This was just outside of the timeframe of 48 hours set within the landlord’s complaints policy. However, this was within the timeframe of 5 working days set within the Code. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 22 April 2024, within the required timeframes. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 3 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 May 2024 and sent the resident a stage 2 response on 3 June 2024, within the required timeframes. Therefore, we find that there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

23. The landlord may find it useful to visit our centre for learning to access our bitesize learning and case studies on ASB.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord provided very limited evidence in this case. There were gaps in the records and key documents missing, such as copies of the resident’s reports and the ASB case notes. This affected our investigation.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times. On occasion, when the resident contacted the landlord asking for an update, it did not respond.