Birmingham City Council (202419409)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419409

Birmingham City Council

24 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:
   1. concerns regarding the conduct of staff.
   2. formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which commenced on 22 June 2015. The property is a one-bed flat in a medium-rise block.
3. On 16 January 2024, a manager from the landlord (Ms X) attended the resident’s block after she raised concerns about the caretaking service.
4. On 19 January 2024, the resident reported that someone had put a brick through her window. She said she suspected a caretaker may be responsible.
5. On 24 and 26 February 2024, the resident raised a complaint. She stated the following:
   1. She felt threatened and intimidated by the attitudes of the team of caretakers.
   2. A neighbourhood caretaker (who supervised other caretakers) told her he was not responsible for her block, therefore she could not communicate directly with a caretaker.
   3. That caretaker’s manager, Ms X, had witnessed his behaviour when she visited on 16 January 2024. Specifically, Ms X had witnessed a phone conversation (on loudspeaker) between her and the neighbourhood caretaker. The neighbourhood caretaker had told her he was not responsible for her estate, she should not call him, and she could check his job description online.
   4. The resident added when she told the neighbourhood caretaker Ms X was present, he and 2 other caretakers attended in a “rushed, defensive aggressive state”. The neighbour caretaker had talked to her in “raised tones”, therefore the manager had asked him to wait outside.
   5. She believed a caretaker put a brick through her window. She had since seen the neighbourhood caretaker driving past her property and staring at the window which made her “on edge”.
   6. She wanted to know if the neighbourhood caretaker and other caretakers had been DBS checked.
6. The resident raised a different complaint about another manager (Ms Y) on 25 February 2024. This complaint was about the attitude of the manager towards her during an inspection of a neighbouring block on 20 February 2024. The landlord agreed to consider this complaint together with the previous complaint raised.
7. On 11 March 2024, the landlord sent the stage 1 response. It said the following:
   1. A senior member of staff had discussed the allegations against the caretakers with senior colleagues. It would address as an internal matter but could not disclose details due to confidentiality.
   2. The neighbourhood caretaker had been transferred due to operational resource requirements.
   3. Regarding the allegation of a smashed window, it had reviewed the activities and whereabouts of staff on that day. Staff were fully able to account for their time, therefore there was no evidence of misconduct.
   4. It had discussed the allegations about Ms Y with her manager who had dealt with the matter internally. Again, it could not disclose details due to confidentiality.
   5. It had partially upheld the complaint.
8. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 March 2025. She stated the following:
   1. She wanted the landlord to provide evidence to show what actions it had taken to address her concerns. This included her report that the neighbourhood caretaker had told her he was not her caretaker and had ignored her.
   2. The landlord did not answer her query about DBS checks.
   3. She wanted the landlord to explain why it had made enquiries with a neighbour from another block about her reports.
   4. She believed Ms Y’s behaviour was unprofessional.
   5. The complaint response did not indicate which part of her complaint it upheld.
9. On 23 April 2024, the landlord sent the stage 2 response and said the following:
   1. It could not advise about DBS checks to staff or why it had transferred the neighbourhood caretaker.
   2. The police had found no evidence that staff had smashed her window when on duty. It had also conducted an internal investigation which included interviewing the caretakers. Taken altogether, there were no grounds for further action.
   3. It had surveyed the neighbouring block about the window incident, not just the neighbour the resident had identified.
   4. At the visit on 16 January 2024, Ms X agreed that the cleaning was not satisfactory. Ms X also confirmed the neighbourhood caretaker advised his job description could be seen online and then attended to discuss the issue. However, Ms X did not consider that the caretaker was rude on the phone or acted inappropriately when he arrived.
   5. Regarding the complaint about Ms Y, she was visiting another resident. She and a colleague after being met by a group of residents explained she felt unsafe. Ms Y had put her hand to her body to ask that the resident not talk over her when she was speaking to another resident.
   6. It had spoken to the caretaker who cleaned on 16 February 2024.
   7. The resident could send video evidence if she felt that Ms Y acted inappropriately.
   8. It did not believe that the stage 1 complaint should have been partially upheld as local staff had investigated the issues raised appropriately. It apologised for any confusion. If offered £50 compensation as it did not deliver the service in line with its service standards, policies, and procedures.
10. In correspondence after the stage 2 response, the resident provided a witness statement from another neighbour who was present at the inspection of 20 April 2024. After it validated the statement, the landlord advised the resident a manager had decided there was no new evidence to support reinvestigation. The resident also requested from the complaints officer who investigated her stage 2 complaint the name of his manager. This was because the complaints manager had informed her he had discussed the complaint with the manager. The landlord in response said that it was not obliged to provide the name and did not do so.
11. The resident initially referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 18 August 2024. This was because the landlord would not open a new complaint to investigate her concerns about the handling of her complaint. She has since provided her version of events and confirms the substantive complaint remains unresolved. She has stated the following:
    1. She considers the caretakers have acted intimidatory towards her when making contact. She considers their behaviour towards her to be retaliatory and linked to her complaints.
    2. She does not consider the landlord has taken adequate steps to address her concerns about the caretakers and Ms Y. She does not consider that its findings are reliable.
    3. She has questioned the level of communication by the landlord, including its transparency when investigating her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12. The resident raised a prior complaint about the standard of the communal cleaning service. This complaint completed the landlord’s complaints procedure on 30 November 2023. The Ombudsman is separately investigating this complaint under the reference 202334810.
13. The resident raised another complaint regarding warnings the landlord issued to her about her behaviour. This complaint completed the landlord’s complaints procedure on 11 September 2024. The Ombudsman is separately investigating this complaint under the reference 202422793.
14. The resident has provided evidence to the Ombudsman that pertains to all 3 complaints. The evidence also contains details of other complaints, service requests, and queries she raised with the landlord during the time period of this complaint about related housing management issues. The resident has also provided evidence of further, more recent complaints to the landlord. We note that the information sent provides additional context to this complaint. However, this investigation will not duplicate the other complaints raised with the Ombudsman. Nor will the investigation conflate other issues raised with the landlord that have not been formally referred to the Ombudsman for investigation. In line with our previous correspondence to the parties, this investigation will focus on the issues raised within the complaint that completed the landlord’s complaints procedure on 23 April 2024.

Staff conduct

15. In assessing this complaint, the Ombudsman has not sought to determine whether the reported behaviour of the landlord’s staff occurred or whether they breached the employee’s code of conduct. That was a judgement which fell to the landlord to determine, as is any disciplinary or performance management action. The Ombudsman appreciates that different parties can have different, personal responses to situations and can draw differing conclusions about the actions and intentions of others. We also note that there can be different recollections of events. The investigation has assessed to what extent the steps taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports were appropriate, reasonable, and proportionate.
16. The resident’s complaint about staff conduct concerned the behaviour and attitude of the caretakers towards her. She specifically raised the behaviour of the neighbourhood caretaker at the visit of 16 January 2024. She further said she suspected that one of the caretakers smashed her window on 19 January 2024. In her correspondence, the resident noted Ms X had informed her earlier that day that she had taken “immediate action” to address issues raised at the visit. The resident put forward a caretaker had smashed her window in response.
17. With regards to the incident of 16 January 2024, the resident provided a detailed account of events. She noted Ms X overheard the neighbourhood caretaker telling her on the phone not to contact him. The resident further stated, after arriving, the neighbourhood caretaker spoke loudly to her so Ms X asked him to leave the room.
18. Where a resident has raised a complaint about the conduct of staff, a landlord should conduct a reasonable investigation which should involve reviewing evidence and speaking to the parties involved. It is evident that the landlord spoke with the caretakers and Ms X as part of its investigation, which was appropriate. In the stage 2 response, the landlord concluded the neighbourhood caretaker was not rude on the call and did not act inappropriately. However, it did not specifically address the resident’s version of events, which was a missed opportunity to demonstrate it understood and had considered her position.
19. Furthermore, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s report that the neighbourhood caretaker had previously told her he did not cover her block and had ignored her concerns about cleaning. This was a further missed opportunity to clarify the role of the caretaker and whether the previous advice they had given her was correct.
20. It also did not address the resident’s report she found the neighbourhood caretaker and other caretakers to be generally intimidating, including at the visit of 16 January 2024. This was particularly unreasonable as the Tenants Handbook states “look at the information on the noticeboard in the lobby of your block. This will give you contact details for your caretaker and other useful information. Your caretaker will be happy for you to approach them with your questions.” The landlord therefore did not take adequate steps to investigate and resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint and ensure this element of its service delivery was being actioned appropriately.
21. With regards to the incident of 19 January 2024, the landlord has provided evidence that a member of staff not connected with the service questioned the caretakers. It ascertained their whereabouts during the period of the incident. As stated in the stage 2 response, it also sought information from other neighbours. The landlord therefore took appropriate steps to investigate the incident. While we understand the resident’s position, the landlord’s decision that there were no grounds to take further action was reasonable given there was no corroborative evidence available that a caretaker had smashed the resident’s window.
22. The resident’s complaint about staff conduct also concerned the behaviour of Ms Y at the visit of 20 February 2024. The landlord has provided evidence that it obtained Ms Y’s and Ms X’s account of the visit of 20 February 2022, thereby taking appropriate steps to investigate the incident. In the stage 2 response, the landlord explained the staff members had arranged to meet another neighbour at a different block so did not anticipate being approached by a group of residents. The landlord further conveyed that residents raised questions, talking over each other, which did not allow for “constructive conversations”. The landlord explained that Ms Y moved her hand to request that the resident stop speaking over her as she was talking to different residents at the time.
23. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she thought Ms Y ignored her and was not taking to anyone when she questioned Ms Y. However, ultimately, the landlord investigated the incident and explained its version of events and findings to the resident. In the stage 1 response, the landlord said it was sorry to hear the resident was dissatisfied with the way she was communicated to by Ms Y. While the resident maintained its position it was appropriate that it recognised the resident’s version of events. It therefore took appropriate action to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
24. The resident requested details of actions taken against staff. Due to the employer-employee relationship and the expectation of confidentiality, it was reasonable that the landlord did not tell the resident of any disciplinary action taken.  However, by advising the resident that it had raised her allegations with staff members, the landlord sought to reassure the resident it was addressing her concerns.
25. In summary, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve the resident’s reports about the smashed window on 19 January 2024. It also took reasonable steps to investigate following the complaint about the conduct of Ms Y at the visit of 20 February 2024. However, it did not adequately address the resident’s concerns about the conduct of caretakers, including the information about the service they provide, at the visit of 16 January 2024, or their general behaviour and attitude to her. For this reason, we find that there was service failure by the landlord in respect of this complaint. We award the resident £100 compensation. In making this award we have considered the level of redress for service failure outlined in our Remedies Guidance.

Complaint Handling

26. The landlord’s Comments, Compliments and Complaints Policy states that it will investigate a complaint at stage 1 with the relevant service and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days of receiving the escalated complaint. The landlord met these timescales when it responded to the resident’s complaint.
27. The landlord partially upheld the complaint at stage 1. However, the response did not make clear why it upheld the complaint. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which states landlords must at the completion of stage 1 confirm the reasons for any decision made. The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates the complaint was upheld because of what Ms X witnessed between the resident and the neighbourhood caretaker; however, the landlord did not say this in the response.
28. At stage 2, the landlord rescinded the decision to uphold the complaint. It acknowledged the new outcome may cause the resident inconvenience or confusion. However, by explaining its basis for changing the outcome, apologising, and offering compensation, it took steps to put matters right.
29. In the stage 2 response, the landlord noted that residents were filming Ms X and Ms Y at the visit of 20 February 2024. It advised the resident she could provide evidence to support her claim that Ms Y acted inappropriately. It therefore raised her expectation that it may reinvestigate this aspect of her complaint.
30. The resident did not provide video evidence but a witness statement on 5 May 2024. On 4 June 2024, the landlord advised the statement contained no new information to support a reinvestigation of the complaint about Ms Y. This was an inadequate explanation as the statement was in and of itself new information. While the landlord may have considered the statement insufficiently strong or reliable to review its decision, it did not explicitly say this. Therefore, having raised the resident’s expectations that it may reinvestigate her complaint about Ms Y, it did not provide a reasonable explanation for not doing so after receiving further information.
31. In correspondence between 3 and 4 June 2024, the resident asked the staff member who investigated her complaint at stage 2 for the name of his manager. She noted he had advised her on 28 May 2024 that he had contacted the manager about the witness statement. The landlord did not provide the manager’s name.
32. The landlord has a responsibility as an organisation to respond to the resident’s complaints and other service requests. Different members of staff may be involved in reaching a decision or in formulating a response and there is nothing within its complaints procedure or service standards that obliges it to disclose the names of staff involved in internal discussions. Furthermore, the manager was not a customer facing role. The resident had access to the complaints team and it was not necessary for her to have the manager’s details in order to progress her complaint. The landlord’s decision was therefore reasonable.
33. In summary, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with required timescales. It offered redress for changing the decision reached on the complaint. It was not obliged to disclose the name of a manager identified by the resident. However, it raised the resident’s expectations that it may reinvestigate her complaint about Ms Y. It then did not provide a reasonable explanation for not doing so after receiving further information. For this reason, we find that there was service failure in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint. We award the resident £100 compensation. This order replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £50. In making this award we have considered the level of redress for service failure outlined in our Remedies Guidance.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the conduct of staff.
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Orders

36. The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks, to:
    1. pay the resident compensation of £200 comprising:
       1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her concerns regarding the conduct of staff.
       2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her complaint.
       3. The landlord may deduct any compensation already paid to the resident in respect of this complaint.
    2. confirm to the resident how she can report further concerns about the caretaking service.
    3. send a further response to the resident in respect of the witness statement provided. It should explain whether the statement affects the decision reached on the complaint about Ms Y.