Birmingham City Council (202412991)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom property within a block of flats. She lives there alone.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) including noise nuisance.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB including noise nuisance.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB including noise nuisance

4. The landlord’s communication was poor. It did not respond promptly to the resident’s requests for an update. In its complaint response it acknowledged gaps in its communication and apologised but did not offer redress for any distress and inconvenience this may have caused her.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint when she initially requested.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us the ASB and noise nuisance had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. On 24 August 2023 the resident reported ASB to the landlord. She said her neighbour shouted abuse at her and was racist. As part of its triage assessment, the landlord categorised this report as category ‘A’. In line with its ASB procedure for category A reports, it attempted to contact her within 24 hours which was appropriate. However, the resident did not answer and so it left her a voicemail asking for a call back. It also told her to report the matter to the police, which was reasonable advice. The landlord attempted to call the resident again on 15 September 2023, but she did not answer. It sent her a letter of its attempts to call her and asked her to contact it, which was reasonable.
8. Between 21 September 2023 and 2 October 2023, the resident reported noise from the same neighbour which included doors banging, stomping and throwing heavy objects on the floor. She said the noise was constant, her neighbour followed her above in his flat and it was affecting her sleep and impacting her health and work. The landlord attempted to contact her on 4 October 2023 at the time agreed with her, but she did not answer. It also attempted to call her on 18 October 2023 without success. This impacted the landlord’s ability to discuss the reported noise complaint, consider the risk, and agree an action plan.
9. During a call with the resident on 27 November 2023, the landlord told her it was unable to progress her case without noise recordings. It was reasonable for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations about the limited actions it could take about the reported noise without evidence. In accordance with its ASB procedure, it sent her a letter on 8 December 2023 confirming it would close her case if it did not hear back from her.
10. Following contact from the resident, the landlord visited her on 29 January 2024 and agreed an action plan. It also interviewed another neighbour. This was appropriate and in accordance with its ASB procedure. It sent the resident a letter confirming what it agreed in the action plan. It said it would contact the mental health team about her neighbour, write to him about the allegations and arrange an interview. It asked her to record new incidents using diary sheets and said it would contact her as necessary to keep her updated on its investigation. The resident raised concerns the landlord included an incorrect address in its letter. The landlord acknowledged this in its complaint response and apologised, which was reasonable.
11. In line with the agreed action plan and its ASB procedure, the landlord wrote to the neighbour about the resident’s allegations and visited him. The resident says the landlord delayed interviewing her neighbour. However, there were other professionals it needed to involve to arrange this visit. It also completed internal checks and made appropriate enquiries prior to the visit.
12. Due to the neighbour denying the resident’s allegations and making counter allegations, the landlord repeated its request for noise evidence from the resident. It was reasonable for it to do this to progress her case. There was a delay on her part sending evidence of the noise recordings. To help, the landlord agreed to visit on 3 April 2024 to install the noise app and go through it with her. It was good practice for the landlord to do this.
13. There was also a delay in the landlord receiving completed diary sheets. The resident said the landlord did not send these to her to complete on the occasions it said it did. The landlord’s internal notes recorded several instances when it says it sent the resident diary sheets. We are unable to determine this point any further.

14. The resident was unhappy the landlord said the noise she reported could be due to repairs at the neighbour’s property and raised repairs for him. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider if the repairs could be contributing to the noise and to raise work for these to minimise the noise she reported. The resident was unhappy the landlord did not respond to her reports of cracks in her ceiling plaster, which she said was noise related damage. We have recommended the landlord inspects her property to consider her reports of noise related damage and decide if it needs to complete any repairs.
15. Our role is not to determine whether noise nuisance or ASB occurred but to assess whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports. In accordance with its ASB procedure, the landlord interviewed the resident, her neighbour and a witness. It agreed an action plan with the resident and sent her diary sheets. It made appropriate enquiries with professionals involved, with her neighbour and asked him to adjust his CCTV which he did. It also signposted the resident to the police where it was relevant. Its actions were appropriate and in line with its procedure. Following the resident’s complaint, it also allocated her case to a different staff member which was a proportionate response to the resident’s concerns.
16. However, there were occasions when it did not respond promptly to the resident’s call back requests. On 24 October 2023 the resident requested an update from the landlord but it did not call her back until 27 November 2023. This was unreasonable and likely to have caused her distress and inconvenience. On 18 and 19 March 2024 she asked for a manager to call her back but there was no evidence it did, which led to her complaint on 20 March 2024. On 22 April 2024 the resident called and it said it would call her back in half an hour, but there was no evidence it did. This caused the resident further time and trouble calling to request callbacks again on 3 May and 8 May 2024. This is evidence of poor communication.
17. In view of its poor communication, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB including noise nuisance. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100. This recognises the distress, time, and trouble its poor communication may have caused the resident.
18. The resident said as a resolution to the case, she would like to move to a different property. We cannot tell a landlord to move the resident or comment on how it should allocate vacant properties. However, we have made a recommendation for it to manage her expectations by explaining its allocation and rehousing procedures and explore any available options.

19. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 March 2024. It responded to her in line with its complaints policy and our complaint handling code (the Code).
20. The resident tried to escalate her complaint to stage 2 sometime in May 2024 but the landlord did not provide us with a date. On 29 May 2024 the landlord told her it was not escalating her complaint to stage 2 and had put it on hold while it attempted to get an update on her case. This was inappropriate and not in line with our Code which says landlords must not refuse to escalate a complaint unless it has a valid reason to do so, which we have not seen it had.
21. The resident remained unhappy with the update it provided and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint again on 3 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged her escalation and responded at stage 2 in line with its complaints policy timescale.
22. Due to the landlord initially preventing the resident escalating her complaint, we found service failure in its complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation which is in keeping with our remedies guidance for service failures that may have caused time and trouble to the resident over a short duration. 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. We have not seen evidence of completed risk assessments. As part of its investigation into the ASB and noise nuisance, it is good practice for the landlord to complete risk assessments with the parties involved at the outset and at key stages.

Communication

24. The landlord’s communication was poor and there were gaps in its communication. It should review how it manages resident’s expectations for updates.