From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Birmingham City Council (202426655)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426655

Birmingham City Council

13 June 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 about fly-tipping.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom flat in a high-rise block where she resides with her husband. The landlord, a local council, owns the building. The resident’s son is her representative and brought her complaint to us. For the purpose of this report, the resident and her son will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 1 July 2024. She said it was not the first time she had complained about non-residents coming to the building to dump rubbish at the entrance to the block. It had removed the CCTV cameras and the building looked like a “junkyard”.
  3. On 4 July 2024 the landlord responded to the resident and said it had asked its housing team to investigate the matter as a service request, not a complaint. The resident responded the following day and said she was making a complaint. She raised her complaint again on 21 and 27 July 2024, which it acknowledged on 31 July 2024.
  4. The landlord sent it stage 1 response on 5 August 2024. It said that it had dealt with the matter previously under a separate complaint reference. It said it could only remove dumped items as it had no evidence of an identified perpetrator. Its senior management had made the decision to remove the CCTV, however, this was under review. It apologised for any confusion in handling and acknowledging the complaint.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 7 August 2024. She said that residents were struggling with an issue that it never seemed to resolve. With no CCTV, people came late at night to dump items, which suggested no hope of finding a perpetrator. She wanted it to do more to prevent the ongoing issue.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 4 September 2024. It empathised that it would be unpleasant to have items dumped near the resident’s home. It said it had liaised with the housing team and found no details of an alleged perpetrator and was, therefore, unable to progress an antisocial behaviour case. It repeated that it could only remove the fly tipped items. It said that there was no statutory requirement to have CCTV and subsequently it may not identify any offenders. It said it was sorry that this did not resolve the issue regarding the ongoing fly-tipping.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She believes that the bins near the communal entrance are a health hazard as they attract fly-tipping and wants it to move the bins to an alternative location and keep the entrance clean.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us that she has made in excess of 50 complaints since 2020 about the ongoing fly-tipping and rubbish near her home. While we do not dispute this, we are unable to consider this timeframe. This is because with the passage of time, the evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. This assessment has focussed on the period leading up to the resident’s complaint onwards.

Concerns about fly-tipping

  1. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy classes fly-tipping as category C and says it will make contact within 10 working days. Its tenants handbook says that its caretaking service will pick up litter around the block and remove any bulk rubbish. It conducts estate walkabouts regularly to ensure expected standards. The resident’s tenancy agreement shows that she pays a service charge for caretaking services.
  2. The resident told us that the fly-tipping near the entrance to her home was ongoing and she had previously raised many complaints. She said that there was no deterrent since removing the CCTV.
  3. While the landlord initially rejected the complaint, it notified its local housing team of the issue and asked it to investigate. There was no evidence provided to suggest that it had reviewed its records to identify whether there was a pattern of fly-tipping or whether the resident had made frequent complaints about the issue.
  4. The resident responded on 4 July 2024 stating that random people were dumping large quantities of rubbish by the entrance, and she had sent evidence of this. The photographs in evidence support this.
  5. The landlord responded the following day and said it had removed the CCTV as it did not meet GDPR standards. It apologised if she felt that this had increased fly tipped items. It provided a link to report fly-tipping and said if she had done this then it would raise a complaint. It said its tenancy estate management team would remove dumped rubbish in a timely manner and contact her with the details. There is no evidence to suggest that it reviewed its records to determine if reports of fly-tipping had increased since the removal of the CCTV.
  6. The resident responded the same day. While she understood the landlord had to remove the cameras, she considered it could have replaced them. She said this left residents “at the mercy of fly tippers”. She said that removing the items did not solve the problem of people visiting late at night to dump items. She said her complaint was not about the lack of collection but the increase in vans full of rubbish being dropped by the entrance where she lived. We empathise that walking past large quantities of dumped items to enter the building would likely be distressing for the resident and her family.
  7. The landlord responded stating that while it took a corporate decision to remove CCTV, it would be installing CCTV in internal areas subject to funding. While this was a positive step, it did not address the issue of fly-tipping externally. It said that CCTV had been removed from all blocks across the city, although it hoped this would change in due course. It said it would ask for an inspection of the block and if she had evidence of people dumping waste then it would investigate further. It was not reasonable to put the onus on the resident to provide evidence. She had provided photographs which demonstrated that fly-tipping was occurring but it was not appropriate to expect her to identify those doing this.
  8. The resident repeated her concerns on 21 and 27 July 2024. She said she had been reporting the matter for a long time and people were dumping construction materials late at night. She had reported the matter many days ago and since then more items had been dumped which had become a daily occurrence. As there was no CCTV people were freely dumping things. She sent photographs of dumped sofas and other items and said the people needed to be caught and prosecuted.
  9. On 31 July 2024 the landlord’s records show that it raised an order to clear any dumped items. It also asked for letters to be sent to all residents advising them against fly-tipping. While this was an appropriate action, it did not take into account that the resident had said it was not residents who were dumping items. It did not demonstrate that it considered alternative remedies such as increased estate inspections or walkabouts as suggested in its tenant handbook, or contacting environmental health to discuss solutions.
  10. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it referred to the matter being addressed under a previous complaint reference. This confirms that the resident had raised previous complaints. It missed an opportunity to investigate further and determine if the occurrence was frequent. It said there was no information of an alleged perpetrator or any witness statements which meant it could only remove the items. It said this was the only action it could take without an identified perpetrator.
  11. The landlord said a decision was made at a senior level to remove the CCTV cameras as there was no statutory requirement to have them installed in blocks of flats. It said this was under review but it was unable to identify any failures and repeated that if the resident had any evidence, it would initiate an investigation. It had informed its neighbourhood service team about the items being dumped and provided a link to report fly-tipping. While it was reasonable for the landlord to remove dumped items and explain why it could not open an antisocial behaviour case, it failed to consider any alternative solutions or remedies as mentioned previously.
  12. In the resident’s escalation request she repeated her concerns. She said that residents were struggling with the issue which would not be resolved by solely removing the items. She said with the removal of cameras, and visits late at night to dump rubbish, there was little hope of identifying a perpetrator.
  13. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it empathised that it would be unpleasant to have items fly tipped adjacent to where the resident lived and repeated its previous responses. It said that while CCTV was often presumed to be the ideal solution, it could be difficult to identify an offender if their face was obscured or a vehicle has false registration plates. It also states that the use of surveillance systems could be privacy intrusive and could place large numbers of law-abiding citizens under surveillance by recording their day-to-day activities. It found no failings and said it was sorry this did not resolve the issue regarding the ongoing fly-tipping. Its local neighbourhood services team had been advised of the fly-tipping and had advised that the area was clear of any dumped items.
  14. While the landlord showed some empathy it again did not consider its records, remedies, and whether there was a frequent issue with fly-tipping near the resident’s home. It took a reactive approach to each report of fly-tipped items rather than considering a more proactive solution.
  15. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response the resident continued to raise complaints up to March 2025. She repeated her concerns stating that the estate had become a centre for fly-tipping. She said it was “an embarrassment” to ask residents to resolve an issue caused by its failure. She said that the piles of rubbish were a health hazard. The landlord continued to raise service requests and arrange collections.
  16. In the landlord’s explanation to us it said that it was unable to prevent continued fly-tipping in the area or any other area of the city. While the resident was unhappy with its decision to remove the CCTV cameras from the block, the cameras had not assisted in identifying perpetrators of fly-tipping or any other type of antisocial behaviour. When it is notified of fly-tipping (not dumped household rubbish as this is currently affected by industrial action), its specialist teams remove the offending articles. Unless a tenant is able to identify perpetrators of particular items, it is unable to enforce action against its residents.
  17. The landlord demonstrated that it raised orders to remove dumped items in response to the resident reports. However, it has not demonstrated that it took a proactive approach to find a solution or ensure the estate was monitored to prevent fly-tipping taking place. We have, therefore, made a finding of service failure. We have made an order for the landlord to pay to the resident the sum of £100. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where a landlord has not appropriately acknowledged matters and not fully put things right. We have also made orders for the landlord to contact the council’s Environmental Health team and consider the location of the communal bins.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code. Its policy refers to service requests stating that a service request may result from something that has gone wrong. If it is the first instance the request has been made, it is a service request and not a complaint. However, if a service request has not been actioned, or work has not been done to an acceptable standard, it should be considered a complaint.
  2. The landlord initially rejected the resident’s complaint of 1 July 2024, stating it was a service request. The resident responded on 4 July 2024 stating that its response implied that complaints could not be made about a lack or quality of service. She asked it to read her complaint again and provide a response that involved “a degree of sympathy” with her situation.
  3. The landlord responded on 5 July 2024 repeating that it was a service request. The resident responded the same day disputing this and again stated that she believed it was a complaint. Its refusal to accept the resident’s complaint likely added to her frustration. Its decision to reject the complaint was not appropriate given that the resident repeatedly expressed her dissatisfaction and stated that it was not the first time she was complaining. It should have been aware from its own policy what constitutes a service request or complaint and responded appropriately.
  4. That said, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s further complaints on 31 July 2024. It responded within its complaint policy timescales thereafter and apologised in its stage 1 response for any confusion caused in handling and acknowledging her complaint.
  5. While this could be said to put things right, it did not demonstrate any learning or offer any redress. We have, therefore made a finding of service failure. We have made an order for the landlord to pay £50 to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance as set out above. We have also made a recommendation that the landlord considers when it is appropriate to raise a service request or complaint in line with its policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about fly-tipping.
    2. Associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay to the resident the sum of £150 broken down as follows:
      1. £100 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for failing to consider solutions to the ongoing fly-tipping
      2. £50 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for its complaint handling failures.
    2. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss the possibility of relocating the communal bins away from the entrance of the building. If it is unable to move the bins to an alternative location it should explain its reasons and explain how it will monitor the site going forward to prevent fly-tipping. It should provide a written response to the resident and us.
    4. Contact the council’s Environmental Health team to discuss possible solutions to fly-tipping and provide an update to the resident and us.
    5. Provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure that its complaint handling staff are able to identify appropriately where a resident has expressed dissatisfaction and raise complaints accordingly.