Tamworth Borough Council (202336512)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336512

Tamworth Borough Council

30 September 2024


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Both she and her partner have been involved with this complaint. They are referred to collectively as ‘the resident’ in this report.
  2. The evidence shows the resident has reported to the landlord ASB by neighbours multiple times over several years.
  3. In June and August 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that neighbours were smoking cannabis in their gardens. The landlord opened an ASB case and contacted the resident to discuss her concerns.
  4. The resident made another report in September 2023, and several more in October, November, and early December. The issues reported mainly included barking dogs and loud music. She provided noise app reports in support, and video of an incident with the neighbours. The landlord visited her to discuss her concerns, considered the noise app reports and video, liaised with the police, wrote to and then interviewed the neighbours, and suggested mediation between the two parties.
  5. The landlord closed its ASB case in mid-December 2023. It explained to the resident that the recordings she had provided gave only limited support to her reports of music and barking, and the police had spoken to the neighbours about a verbal incident and been warned about their behaviour. Much of the noise recorded and reported to it appeared to be general household noise, transferring from one household to the other.             
  6. The resident made further reports of barking dogs on 21 and 31 December 2023, and 1 January 2024. At the same time, she appealed against the landlord’s decision to close the ASB case.
  7. The landlord sent its appeal response on 5 January 2024. It explained its actions, processes, and decisions in detail, but reaffirmed its decision to close the case because of insufficient evidence. It also explained how the resident could ask for an ASB case review if she remained dissatisfied with its decision.
  8. Further reports of barking dogs were made on 17 and 22 February 2024. The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 February explaining that the recent recordings she had provided still did not provide sufficient evidence on which to take further action.
  9. The resident complained to the landlord at the end of February 2024. She referred to her ASB experiences over the last several years, and the reports she had made to the landlord. She was dissatisfied with it not taking action despite the evidence she had provided, and specifically expressed her concern that multiple noise app and similar reports she had made since mid-December 2023 had not been responded to. She said she wanted the landlord to evict the neighbours and would not accept anything else.
  10. The landlord sent its complaint response on 8 March 2024. It summarised the actions leading up to closing the ASB case in December 2023, and explained which further reports it had received from the resident since then. It confirmed it had responded to the resident on 17 January, and provided feedback about the noise reports at the end of February. It concluded it had handled the reports appropriately.
  11. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 3 April 2024. She explained the history of her ASB experiences and its impact on her and her family. She said again that she felt her recent reports had been ignored.
  12. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 17 April 2024. It referred to having met with the resident to discuss her concerns and had discussed the ASB case with the relevant officers. It apologised for the resident being dissatisfied with its service, and summarised its ASB process, especially how to report problems. It explained that “On receipt of your report you will be contacted within 4 working days, to advise on what will happen next.” It also repeated its previous suggestion of an ASB case review. It said its response was the end of the complaints process and provided the Ombudsman’s contact details.
  13. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decisions and actions, especially in regard to her most recent reports at the end of December 2023 and in early 2024. She said she wanted the landlord to evict the neighbours.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. In her complaints to the landlord and the Ombudsman the resident has referred to many historic ASB issues, and actions by the landlord over several previous years.
  2. There are time limits for complaints which the Ombudsman may consider. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that an issue should be brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. At the time of the resident’s complaint a reasonable period was considered to be 6 months.
  3. Because of that, this investigation focuses on the events in the months leading up to the formal complaint to the landlord in February 2024. References to older matters in the report are for background and context only.
  4. Paragraph 42.o. of the Scheme explains the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint in which the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
  5. In her complaints the resident told the Ombudsman and landlord she wants her neighbours to be evicted. The Ombudsman has no powers to order a landlord to evict a tenant. However, there are other remedies within the Ombudsman’s remit which may be proportionate and relevant to the findings made in this report. Discretion has therefore been used to consider the complaint.
  6. The resident has explained to the Ombudsman her concerns about some ASB issues which were not clearly part of her complaint to the landlord, such as an incident in November 2023 involving the police. She has also referred to further ASB reports she made to the landlord after its final complaint response in April 2024. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, such concerns need to be put to the landlord as a formal complaint before they can potentially be examined by the Ombudsman in a new investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports

  1. In her complaints to the landlord the resident specifically explained her dissatisfaction with what she saw as its failure to respond to the reports she had made since it closed its previous ASB case in December 2023.
  2. In response the landlord set out the actions it had taken since mid-2023, including with the resident’s noise app and other reports received from the end of 2023 and in early 2024. The landlord’s records confirm it received her approximately 20 noise app reports, and several videos, sent on at least 8 separate days (including New Year’s Eve and early New Year’s Day). They also show the landlord considered and assessed each of them, although not when they did so.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy in place at the time of these reports (it has since been amended) stated it will “acknowledge [reports] within 24 working hours, assess and arrange an interview within 10 working days.” It is not apparent from the evidence how the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports. However, in her correspondence she explained the noise app showed the landlord had received them which, essentially, was an acknowledgement.
  4. In a case where a landlord receives multiple reports in a short period, it stands to reason that it may not be able to respond to each specific one. Rather, it would instead be pragmatic to respond in a reasonable timescale to the reports as a whole.
  5. That is what the landlord did in this case. It explained to the resident at the end of February 2024 that the reports she had sent since the ASB case was closed were not sufficient evidence for it to take further action. Its notes about each of the noise app reports and the videos support its decision and explanation. Nothing in the evidence indicates the landlord overlooked something of relevance, or that its decision was unsound.
  6. However, along with her reports the resident had also explained her increasing frustration with the landlord not appearing to be taking any action at all. She said the noise app confirmed the reports were received, but also that they had not been reviewed. In the absence of any other acknowledgement from the landlord her concern was understandable, as was her subsequent complaint.
  7. In its responses to her complaint the landlord did not specifically address this issue. Rather, it explained the range of steps it had taken with the case overall. That approach was partly reasonable, because the dissatisfaction expressed by the resident was wide ranging and broad. But in not specifically addressing the main recent issue the resident had described the landlord failed to appropriately respond to her complaint. That was counter to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which has always emphasised a landlord must address all points raised in a complaint.
  8. This failing was compounded in the landlord’s final complaint response when it emphasised that any ASB reports would be responded to within 4 days. The landlord showed no understanding that the resident was complaining it had not been responding in that way, or that the facts of the case supported her complaint.
  9. The landlord’s general handling of the resident’s ASB reports, at least until it closed its case at the end of 2023, was in line with standard ASB practice. It was particularly relevant, and good practice, that it recommended to the resident that she ask for an ASB case review. Such reviews are specifically intended to address situations when an ASB victim is dissatisfied with the actions taken by the different organisations involved (such as landlords and the police). The review provides further oversight of an ASB case, and can help identify resolution options which may not have been previously considered. It can also provide reassurance to a victim that all that can be done is being done.
  10. Nonetheless, the landlord’s failure to update the resident until the end of February 2024 about its assessment of her reports since December 2023 was poor, and not in line with its ASB policy. Counter to good practice, and the Code, it then failed during its investigations of her complaints to recognise and acknowledge her concerns about its lack of contact.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord did not communicate with or update the resident reasonably following her ASB reports between December 2023 and February 2024. It then did not identify its poor communication when it investigated her complaint.

Orders

  1. In light of the frustration and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings it is ordered to pay her compensation of £200. Evidence of this payment must be provided to the Service within 4 weeks of this report.
  2. Also within 4 weeks, the landlord should consider these findings and a senior manager must write to the resident acknowledging and apologising for its poor communication.