Birmingham City Council (202448332)

Background

1. The resident said he experienced antisocial behaviour (ASB) from various neighbours. This included serious physical violence, threats of violence, intimidating behaviour, and racial abuse. He told the landlord he was fearful of further violence and being killed, and he did not feel safe living in his property. His daughter also reported ASB issues on his behalf. As such, this report uses “the resident” to refer to actions of both him and his daughter.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

5. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns, working with the police and acting in line with its ASB policy. It acknowledged failures in closing duplicate ASB cases and delays in reassigning the case, but it failed to fully put this right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint appropriately and ensured it completed a thorough review at stage 2 to address points it missed at stage 1.

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.

7. The resident was concerned about how the landlord managed his ASB reports. The landlord’s ASB procedure states it will update residents when closing a case and confirm this in writing too. It acknowledged it failed to follow its procedures when closing the 2 duplicate ASB cases in May 2024. This understandably caused confusion for the resident about whether it took his concerns seriously. It was therefore appropriate for it to reflect on its poor handling and take steps to put this right.
8. The landlord also investigated the resident’s concerns about the conduct of staff members investigating the ASB. He believed it had breached data protection regulations by sharing his concerns with the neighbours. However, it explained he had agreed to this so it could investigate his concerns. This was also in line with its ASB policy. We have not seen evidence of data shared other than in accordance with the landlord’s explanation.
9. The resident also reported that the landlord’s housing officer told him to “shut up and go inside” when visiting a neighbour. The evidence shows the landlord engaged with his concerns and investigated this, which was appropriate. It explained the housing officer asked him to go inside to avoid conflict due to the history of ASB between him and the neighbours. This was understandable in the circumstances.
10. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the exact words used during this exchange. However, it is understandable that neither the landlord nor us could establish exactly what was said. Despite this, the evidence shows it completed a fair and reasonable investigation, showing it took his concerns seriously. It also apologised for any upset caused, which was good practice.
11. The resident believed the landlord was biased and favoured the neighbour. His concerns related to the landlord investigating counter-allegations of ASB against him, where it obtained an injunction against him in January 2023, giving the neighbour a power of arrest. He was also unhappy that he was not informed of the injunction before receiving this. The landlord’s ASB policy allows it to seek injunctions without notice where appropriate. As such, it acted in line with its policy in doing so.
12. We have found the landlord managed the ASB reports appropriately, as it:
    1. Investigated its actions following the resident’s concerns about bias and explained it had acted in line with its ASB policy and procedure. We have seen no evidence that the landlord’s conclusion was wrong or unfair.
    2. Signposted the resident to the Information Commissioner’s Office for his privacy concerns about the neighbour’s CCTV cameras. It appropriately explained it had limited options to resolve this itself because it did not manage the neighbour’s property.
    3. Completed and updated action plans throughout the resident’s reports and tried to investigate his ASB concerns.
    4. Explained the resident could request an ASB case review (community trigger) to assess how it handled his ASB reports.
    5. Advised the resident to continue reporting incidents to both it and the police, as he had not done so recently. It acted in line with its ASB policy in explaining that the police needed to lead on investigating criminal matters.
    6. Shared information with the police, including assessing any risks to the resident. Although we have not seen evidence of a formal risk assessment, it is clear it managed this.
    7. Managed the resident’s expectations in explaining that it could not take further action because the police did not have sufficient evidence of the ASB. This was understandable, especially as the neighbours were not its tenants.
    8. Explained that it could not rehouse the resident unless the police confirmed a risk to his life if he remained in his property.
    9. Reassigned the resident’s ASB case again to try to resolve the concerns raised in his complaint, showing it listened to him.
13. The landlord also acknowledged “unacceptable” delays in reassigning the ASB case after the resident raised concerns about a conflict of interest. He was concerned that the housing officer investigating his case was the same officer who had sought the injunction against him. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise this, because it took around 8 weeks to do so.
14. Overall, the landlord mostly responded appropriately to the resident’s ASB reports and in its management of the ASB cases. Where it identified failings, it acknowledged this, which was appropriate. It offered £95 compensation in recognition of its poor communication when closing the ASB cases which was reasonable. However, it missed opportunities to address the impact of the delay in reassigning the resident’s case by not considering awarding any compensation for this. Given this, we have found service failure.
15. We understand the resident remains significantly distressed and frustrated by the ASB issues he reported. However, we have found the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy and procedure in engaging with the police who must lead on criminal matters. Given the police did not have sufficient evidence to take the matter further, it was understandable the landlord could not either. The resident told us the issues continued after the complaints process ended, including recent court proceedings, and he made a new complaint. He may bring the new complaint to us to investigate if needed.

16. The landlord’s complaints policy aligns with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
17. At both stages, the landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint appropriately within the timescales set out in the Code.
18. The landlord’s initial response was understandably disappointing for the resident. It missed an opportunity to address his privacy concerns about the neighbour’s CCTV cameras. It also 3failed to identify the delay in reassigning his ASB case following his concerns of a conflict of interest. However, the landlord put this right by completing a full investigation at stage 2, reviewing its overall handling and responding to his concerns. This was good practice.
19. We have noted above that the landlord missed opportunities to fully address the impact of the delay in reassigning the ASB case. To prevent penalising it twice for the same issue, we have not found an additional failing for this matter in our assessment of its overall complaint handling.

Learning

20. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, bias, and data protection appropriately.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord did not evidence its risk assessments. However, it mitigated any impact by evidencing it communicated with the police to assess any risks posed to the resident.

Communication

22. The landlord appropriately acknowledged communication failures and put this right, showing it took accountability.