Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Birmingham City Council (202207893)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207893

Birmingham City Council

17 February 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 of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about the resident.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The landlord is the freeholder. The property is a flat in a high-rise block (the block). He has lived at the property since 2003.
  2. In December 2021, the landlord received an allegation of ASB from another resident in the block (Person B). Person B sent video recordings to the landlord of the resident shouting at a neighbour from his window and causing damage to a communal door. It received further allegations in January 2022.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 February 2022 setting out the allegations it received. It said that it listened to recordings which it believed were conclusive evidence of ASB. It also viewed video recordings of the resident causing intentional damage to a communal fire door. It said it would report the damage to the police and told the resident that his harassment behaviour must stop immediately. It asked him not to approach his neighbour for any reason.
  4. The resident replied to the landlord on 10 February 2022 denying the allegations. He was unhappy that the landlord warned him without first interviewing him or allowing him an opportunity to respond to the allegations made. He offered to meet with the landlord to discuss the letter.
  5. The parties exchanged emails on 21 and 23 February 2022. The resident said he felt the landlord failed to comply with his right of representation. He quoted article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The landlord offered to meet with the resident and show him the video evidence when they met.
  6. On 24 March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to say person B refused permission for it to share the video evidence. It closed the ASB investigation. On the same day, the resident replied to the landlord saying he was unhappy with its handling of the allegations of ASB.
  7. The resident complained on 29 March 2022. He felt the landlord had failed to allow him representation in response to allegations of ASB.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 April 2022. It did not uphold the complaint. The resident was unhappy with the response and asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on the same day. He felt the landlord lied about the video evidence.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 May 2022. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that it followed the correct ASB procedure. It had not lied about the video evidence that it was unable to disclose to the resident.
  10. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 20 July 2022.

Assessment and findings

  1. On receipt of the allegation of ASB, the landlord appropriately interviewed the complainant and gathered evidence to substantiate the incidents. It should have been clear with person reporting the incident that it may use any evidence it gathered to inform its actions in response. Its ASB policy says that it should agree this as part of its action plan. It was not clear with person B from the beginning of its investigation that it would use the footage with the resident. This meant that when person B refused to share the footage with the resident in March 2022, it had to close its investigation.
  2. The failure at this early part of its investigation led to distrust from the resident and a breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship. The resident repeated throughout his communication with the landlord between March and July 2022 that he thought it either concocted evidence or was incompetent. He felt the landlord irrefutably believed hearsay evidence.
  3. In his complaints, the resident said the landlord failed to comply with his right of representation before sending a warning letter. He described the impact on his rights as set out in Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The law does not require the landlord to interview an alleged perpetrator of ASB before issuing a warning letter. A warning letter is typically an early-stage, informal intervention aimed at stopping the behaviour before it considers formal enforcement actions. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on complaints and evidence from affected residents before deciding to issue a warning.
  4. However, it was unreasonable for the landlord to issue a warning letter to the resident before conducting any interview with him. Although the landlord received evidence that it felt was sufficient to issue a warning, it should have contacted him before doing so. Its 2017 ASB policy (which was in place at the time) says that with the reporter’s consent, it will interview the alleged perpetrator. It should record all interviews in writing and ask those interviewees to sign notes as a true record. This would have been appropriate to do before sending a warning and is good practice in the sector. It also contributed to the resident’s distrust in the landlord when it later closed its ASB case. This was because it never interviewed him or provided any evidence of his alleged wrongdoing.
  5. The landlord failed to properly address the resident’s complaints about its handling of reports of ASB in either of its complaint responses. It incorrectly said that it conducted its investigation into the reports in accordance with its own policy and procedures. It did not address the resident’s concerns that it had interfered with his rights of representation.
  6. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB about the resident. The decision to issue a warning before attempting any interview with the resident did not comply with its policy and procedures. This failure to interview him caused distress and inconvenience, regardless of whether he was responsible for the ASB. It should have been clear with person B how it would use the video evidence before pursuing action against the resident. It failed to fully consider the points raised by the resident in its complaint responses. It was not fair, did not put things right, or learn from outcomes. In accordance with our remedies guidance the landlord should pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This reflects a service failure that has adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB about the resident.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of reports of ASB about him.
    3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman.