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 (202421689)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421689

Birmingham City Council

10 April 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 reports from the resident of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbours.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of a 1-bedroom flat. She has a number of health conditions, including mobility issues.
  2. The landlord opened an ASB case on 15 June 2023 in response to reports made by the resident, of abuse, noise nuisance and harassment, by her neighbours.
  3. On 24 January 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to advise there had been a “serious escalation” regarding the ASB. She said her housing manager was not investigating the case. The landlord logged a complaint at this time.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 of the complaints process on 1 February 2024. It said that it added the complaints information to an open ASB case. It said that ASB was being handled in line with its policies, and the resident should provide any further information or evidence to the landlord.
  5. The resident continued to make a number of ASB complaints. On 8 August 2024, the resident advised that her neighbour had threatened her. She said that she felt her housing manager was not dealing with the ASB complaint.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 3 September 2024. It advised that it had allocated her one point of contact due to their being several reports of ASB. It stated that it spoke with the alleged perpetrator and contacted the police to get an understanding of the events that the resident had reported to them. It also said that the alleged perpetrator had made counter-allegations against the resident. It said it visited the resident on 14 December 2023 but that there was no evidence to support the allegations. It advised that the ASB case remained open but that there was nothing to investigate at that time. It felt it had handled the complaint fairly.
  7. The resident has advised that the ASB has continued at the property. She says this is having a significant impact on her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s actions in response to reports of ASB. We can consider whether the landlord followed its own policies and procedures and whether it took reasonable steps to respond to ASB reports. However, our role is not to investigate reports of ASB or make comments on what has or has not occurred.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbour.

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will respond to ASB complaints within 10 working days. The landlord’s stage 2 response said that it opened an ASB report on 15 June 2023. We have seen a report from the resident regarding an incident that occurred on that day. The first response we have seen in the landlord’s evidence is dated 5 September 2023. This is significantly outside of the timescales detailed in its ASB policy.
  2. The ASB policy states that the landlord will interview the resident and provide an action plan in writing. When the landlord responded it identified that one of the behaviours the resident reported did not constitute ASB. It asked for further details of the other behaviour reported and whether the resident had reported this to the police. It may have been appropriate for the landlord to call the resident at this time, to interview her, as per the landlord’s policy. However, we recognise that the landlord was attempting to gain further evidence and understanding to establish whether ASB had occurred.
  3. The resident reported further concerns of ASB. We have seen 3 reports from the resident between 16 September 2023 and 18 October 2023. We have not seen a response from the landlord until the 18 October 2023. At this time, the landlord agreed to visit the resident to see if it could resolve the matter with a conversation. We consider a visit from the landlord to be an appropriate action to identify and tackle ASB. However, we have not seen a record of this visit.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 October 2023 to advise that she did not receive a promised visit regarding ASB. The resident raised concerns that the neighbour had impersonated the landlord to arrange this visit. There is no response from the landlord in relation to this report. Regardless of whether the visit had gone ahead or not, the landlord should have responded to this concern. We consider this to be a failing as it further fuelled the resident’s belief that the neighbour was perpetrating ASB against her.
  5. The resident made a further report of ASB on 13 November 2023. The landlord spoke with the resident on 20 November 2023 and agreed to speak with the alleged perpetrator. This is an appropriate action from the landlord. On 23 November 2023 it told the resident that the neighbour had made a counter allegation, and it advised the resident that it would contact the police to get an update from them on any reported events. Again, we consider this to be an appropriate reaction in investigating reports of ASB.
  6. The resident continued to report ASB from her neighbour. On 10 January 2024 the landlord received an email from victim support, suggesting it may be appropriate to do a joint visit with the police. On 12 January the landlord sent further contact to the police to ask whether this was an action they would consider. It also asked if the police had done a risk assessment. The landlord took the correct action at this time.
  7. We have seen an internal email from the landlord on 25 January 2024 in which the landlord said it had offered mediation to both parties, but that they had refused this. We consider offering mediation to be a positive action from the landlord.
  8. The police responded on 26 January 2024 providing an update to the landlord stating that it was aware of reports of ASB from the resident. It said it would consider a joint visit however, it had a backlog so this may take some time. We have not seen further evidence that the landlord and police considered a joint visit. We acknowledge this may not be appropriate. However, the landlord may wish to consider if there is a benefit in doing this if ASB reports continue.
  9. In the stage 1 response, the landlord said that it had an open ASB case and that it would continue to investigate the case. We note the resident continued to make reports of ASB after this time, and the landlord did not always respond in a timely manner. We recognise that when high volumes of reports are made it can be difficult for a landlord to respond to each report. In the landlord’s ASB policy, it states it will agree the method and frequency of communication of contact when agreeing an action plan. We have not seen this happened in this instance. We consider this would have been beneficial to manage the resident’s expectations.
  10. On 6 June 2024, the landlord noted a noise complaint and further allegations of ASB. It said that there was no evidence to support the allegations and that it would monitor the case and review in 2 weeks. We have noted that there were a number of incidences where the resident raised noise nuisance as part of her ASB allegations. The landlord’s ASB policy advises it can use noise monitoring equipment to gather evidence. This may not have been an appropriate action from the landlord for the resident’s circumstances. However, we would expect the landlord to have considered it. We have not seen evidence that it did this.
  11. The stage 2 provided details of a number of actions the landlord took to investigate the ASB complaint. This included a visit to the resident on 14 December 2023. It said that due to the lack of evidence it had been unable to take further action. We consider it reasonable that if a landlord cannot corroborate ASB reports, that it cannot take any enforcement action regarding either party.
  12. The landlord’s ASB policy states that any action plan will be communicated in writing. We have not seen evidence of a written action plan to the resident. This would have been beneficial in this case, as the resident raised multiple types of ASB including noise, abuse, and theft. It would have been helpful for the landlord to clearly identify what ASB behaviours it was investigating and to provide clarity to the resident.
  13. The landlord engaged with the police when investigating the ASB. It visited the resident, spoke with the alleged perpetrators, and offered mediation, which both parties refused. We therefore consider that a number of reasonable actions were taken by the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns. We have however identified areas where the landlord could have provided a better service. This includes responding within the ASB policy timescales and managing the resident’s expectation. We have also identified one occasion in which the landlord may have exacerbated the resident’s concerns by not clarifying whether it had agreed an appointment with the resident. We acknowledge this may have had an impact on the resident. Given the reports of ASB could not be corroborated, we cannot see that these failings would have had a significant impact on the landlord’s overall handling of the reports of ASB. We therefore consider there to be service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbours.
  14. In the stage 2 response the landlord said that the ASB case remains open. We would expect a landlord to continue to review any new reports of ASB from the resident. However, it is also appropriate for the landlord to manage new reports inline with its ASB policy. This may mean closing the case until evidence can be provided and managing the resident’s expectations in relation to future contact regarding the same matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of ASB.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a compensation payment of £50. This in recognition of the delays in responding to the resident’s ASB reports, and the failure to address the concern raised by the resident regarding a missed appointment.
  2. The landlord is ordered to provide the resident an update on the status of the ASB case. If appropriate, this should include an action plan and the frequency and method of future contact, as per the landlord’s ASB policy.

Recommendations

  1. Some of the ASB reports involved noise nuisances. If appropriate the landlord may wish to consider using noise monitoring equipment.
  2. The report identified that victim support felt a joint visit from the police and the landlord would be beneficial. It is recommended the landlord reconsider whether this is appropriate, given that the matter is ongoing.