Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Birmingham City Council (202405515)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405515

Birmingham City Council

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 reports of a neighbour dispute.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is an inter-terraced house with a fenced garden.
  2. On 29 August 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about a dispute with her neighbour involving the fence between the 2 properties.
  3. The landlord completed a home visit on 10 October 2023. On 11 October 2023 it wrote to the neighbour. The neighbour made counter allegations and provided video evidence of an incident with the resident.
  4. On 8 November, the landlord liaised with the police, reviewed the video evidence and concluded the resident was the aggressor on that occasion.
  5. On 28 December, the landlord reviewed the case. Its records state that it had offered mediation to both parties, but this had not been accepted. The record does not specify which of the parties did not accept.
  6. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 6 March 2024. She complained:
    1. she had called the landlord on 8 occasions between 6 November 2023 and 21 February 2024 about the disputes with her neighbour, including reports about the fence, loud music and swearing at council officers. The landlord had not returned her calls.
    2. the landlord was acting on the neighbour’s allegations but not the resident’s and was treating her unfairly.
  7. The landlord responded to the complaint on 15 March 2024. It said:
    1. the level of communication with the resident was below its expected standards. The Housing Officer had been on annual leave.
    2. it would carry out a site visit the following week to investigate the fence complaint and agree an action plan. It would investigate the resident’s allegation of noise nuisance separately.
  8. The landlord visited the property on 22 March 2024. It said it would contact the neighbour and develop a plan to resolve the fence dispute.
  9. The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint on 26 April 2024. She complained that there had been no updates and no action since the landlord’s visit to the property on 22 March 2024.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 May 2024. It apologised for the lack of progress with the fence. It said it had previously decided not to act on the allegations and counter allegations of ASB because both parties had been involved in altercations. It did not uphold the complaint.
  11. The resident contacted this Service on 10 May 2024. She said the landlord had not addressed the neighbour’s behaviour. The resident states that she does not believe the landlord would respond to any further reports she might make, and that it has treated her unfairly.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s management of the resident’s reports of the neighbour dispute

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord’s residents have the same rights and responsibilities as each other. A resident must not do anything which causes or is likely to cause nuisance to anyone in the local area, nor do anything which interferes with the peace, comfort or convenience of other people living in the local area. The landlord will investigate all complaints of ASB.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out timescales in which the landlord will respond to reports of ASB, dependent on severity. For incidents such as neighbour nuisance, it would make contact within 10 working days. It would assess risk, vulnerability and agree an action plan. It would keep in regular contact with the complainant and review its cases monthly. When it closed a case, it would write to the parties to confirm the actions it had taken.
  3. The resident has told this Service that she has been in dispute with her neighbour since 2016 and the disputes continue. Matters where there is a history of neighbour disputes over an extended period are often challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the relevant policies ensures that a landlord can offer a clear illustration that it is acting fairly, its response is proportionate to the issues raised, and that its approach is consistent, even if it does not lead to the outcome requested by the resident.
  4. The landlord did not visit the resident until 31 working days after her report to it of the dispute. Its unreasonable delay in responding breached its policy commitment to visit within 10 working days. In doing so, the landlord missed an opportunity to intervene early and to avoid escalation.
  5. The landlord has a responsibility to ensure it takes appropriate and proportionate action to address and resolve reported ASB. The landlord’s action in writing to the neighbour following its visit to the resident was appropriate and proportionate. The landlord liaised with the police, viewed the evidence that both parties provided and decided not to take further action against either party. In cases where formal action is not appropriate, the landlord may try to resolve the matter by reminding those involved of their tenancy obligations and referring them to mediation. However, the parties refused the offer of mediation
  6. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord notified the resident of its decision not to take further action, nor of its rationale for doing so. This was not compliant with its policy, which committed to maintaining regular contact and confirming the action it had taken. The landlord also missed an opportunity to clarify to both parties their obligations and its expectations under the terms of the tenancy agreement.
  7. It is not in dispute that the resident attempted to contact the landlord 8 times, before submitting her stage 1 complaint. This should have alerted the landlord that the resident was expecting further intervention. This lack of communication understandably contributed to the resident’s frustration and promoted her belief that the landlord was treating her unfairly.
  8. The landlord’s internal communication on 13 March 2024 stated, “they need to ignore each other”. This was an inadequate response, which did not seek to address the behaviour of the parties or assist to reach a resolution. The landlord’s policy contains early intervention measures, including acceptable behaviour contracts and good neighbour agreements, which could have been useful in preventing the situation from escalating. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not consider using these tools.
  9. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that its communication had been below acceptable service standards. It stated that the Housing Officer had been on annual leave. This was not a reasonable explanation of its failure to respond to the resident’s calls. This Service expects landlords to maintain sufficient staffing levels to enable it to provide a continuous cohesive service to its residents, irrespective of periods of planned leave. This Service also expects landlords to have effective systems in place to maintain oversight of outstanding case actions.
  10. The landlord undertook a new home visit to the resident after its stage 1 complaint response. However, it failed to take the actions it had agreed, and it did not contact or update the resident. This compounded its previous failures in communication and timely action.
  11. It was not until after the resident submitted a stage 2 complaint that the landlord developed and communicated a plan to address the fence dispute. This was a positive outcome, where the proposed action exceeded the landlord’s repairing and maintenance obligations. It demonstrated the landlord’s attempts to find a solution.
  12. However, the landlord did not propose this solution until 8 months after the resident first contacted it and after the internal complaints process was complete. This was an excessive length of time, during which the resident expended substantial time and trouble in pursuing a resolution.
  13. The landlord had also stated in its stage 1 response that it would investigate the resident’s new reports of noise nuisance. There is no evidence that it did so. Its stage 2 response referred to its earlier decision of November 2023 not to act against either party. This was unreasonable, because its policy states that it will investigate all allegations of ASB. It should have investigated, notified the resident of the outcome and explained its reasons. That it did not do so meant it failed to manage the resident’s expectations and breached its policy. Its lack of action could not but have exacerbated the resident’s mistrust that it would manage the neighbour dispute impartially and fairly.
  14. The landlord has provided this Service with very limited contemporaneous evidence from its systems. It has not produced a copy of the action plan, nor of the risk assessment which it should have completed. It has not evidenced that it conducted monthly reviews into the case. Good record keeping is essential to evidence the action the landlord has taken which then aids in its service delivery, enabling it to respond professionally when something goes wrong. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), which is available on our website, further highlights the need for effective record keeping with recommendations which include:
    1. a minimum standard for key data recording, to ensure quality records are available to support the wider business processes.
    2. ensuring that databases can be easily interrogated and that data can be extracted when needed.
  15. In summary, the landlord missed opportunities to assure the resident that it was treating her impartially and fairly. It failed to respond to the resident’s 1st report of the neighbour dispute in line with policy timelines. It missed an opportunity to take steps at an early stage, which may have prevented the dispute from escalating. It has not evidenced that it carried out a risk assessment or produced an action plan. Its communication and record keeping was poor. The landlord did not learn from the failings it identified in its stage 1 response, and it did not take timely and appropriate steps to put things right for the resident. Cumulatively, there was maladministration in how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a neighbour dispute.

Determination (decision)

  1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a neighbour dispute. 

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. No later than 7 November 2025 the landlord is ordered to:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. directly pay the resident compensation of £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its management of the neighbour dispute and its poor communication with her.
  2. No later than 5 December 2025 the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Undertake and complete a review of the learning for this complaint and identify and implement potential improvements to mitigate any reoccurrence, to include at minimum 3 areas:
      1. timely communication with residents.
      2. ensuring continuity of service to residents during times of staff changes and leave arrangements.
      3. systems to identify track and manage alternative or outstanding actions and approaches on cases of ASB where mediation has been refused.
    2. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord consider what efforts it might take to refresh the resident’s trust in its impartial management of and response to any ongoing disputes with her neighbour.