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

Birmingham City Council (202313822)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313822

Birmingham City Council

27 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, which is a local council.  The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord has recorded that the resident has problems with his mental health including severe depression and anxiety.
  2. In mid-March 2022 the resident reported dog faeces from a neighbour’s dog in the communal area at the rear of the property and that there were dogs barking all day long. The landlord acknowledged this correspondence and said it would visit him the following day.
  3. Towards the end of March 2022, the resident reported an incident on 25 March 2022 whereby a dog belonging to one of the neighbours had tried to climb through his window. He said the dog was “barking aggressively” at him. The resident asked the landlord to take this matter seriously due to his mental health problems.
  4. In April 2022 the resident chased the landlord for a response and said he believed the neighbour had 5 dogs in total. We understand the landlord sent the neighbour a warning letter at that time. In June 2022 the resident told the landlord there had been an improvement but then reported the neighbour was no longer keeping the dogs on leads.
  5. In late August 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update and again reported the neighbour’s 5 dogs were in the communal area without leads and were fouling the area. The landlord opened an ASB case on 20 September 2022.
  6. In January 2023 the resident chased the landlord for a response. At the end of that month the landlord visited the area around the property noting it was “very quiet”.
  7. On 30 January 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of his report of ASB.
  8. On 6 February 2023 the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its formal complaint procedures. In brief it said it had issued a warning letter to the neighbour in April 2022; it believed there were only 2 dogs at the neighbour’s property; and the dog warden had confirmed that none of the dogs would be considered dangerous but that they should be on leads in the communal areas. The landlord said a verbal warning to the neighbour in these circumstances was sufficient. The landlord added that it had checked the communal area a few weeks later and noted no animal excrement and it had therefore closed the case. The landlord also said that it had sent the neighbour another warning letter because they had let the dogs in the communal area without leads. It said it had spoken to the neighbour and made them aware that it would take further action if this happened again.
  9. On 24 February 2023 the resident sent the landlord photos of dog fouling in the communal area outside the property. He also asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
  10. On 28 February 2023 the landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its formal complaint procedures. It confirmed it had sent a final warning letter to the neighbour in relation to dogs fouling in the communal area. It had also suggested to the neighbour that they find another area to use for the dogs to carry out their toileting and that the dogs should be on leads in the communal areas. It said it was looking into how many dogs the neighbour had.
  11. The resident moved out of the property later that year. When he approached us, he said the landlord had acted negligently in its handling of his reports of ASB. He was seeking an apology and compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This investigation has focussed on events from March 2022 that led to the formal complaint up to the end of February 2023 when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response.
  2. The resident mentions that the events complained about worsened his pre-existing mental health issues. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the way it responded to his concerns about his health.
  3. Any concerns the resident may have about the actions of the council’s environmental health team respect of the reported ASB would be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the LGSCO), rather than us. This is because we can only look at local council’s actions in their capacity as social landlords. Any other activities of local authorities fall under the jurisdiction of the LGSCO.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, residents are allowed to own up to 2 dogs and must have written permission from the landlord to keep more. It says that residents must not allow pets to roam and mess the shared areas of the block or neighbourhood. It says that any pets must not cause a nuisance to the neighbours.
  2. The landlord’s ASB procedure sets out 3 categories of ASB including Category C which includes reports of animal nuisance. It says the landlord will make contact with the resident who reported the ASB within 10 working days. It also says that the landlord will carry out a risk assessment of the vulnerability of the reporting resident as part of the ‘triage system’ and/or at their initial contact.
  3. The procedure says that the landlord will interview the reporting resident about the reports and an action plan will be agreed with them. This action plan will include a plan for frequency and method of future contact to allow the resident’s expectations to be managed. It also says the landlord should interview the alleged perpetrator, with agreement from the reporting resident as well as interviewing any witnesses.
  4. The procedure says that if the evidence is substantiated that ASB has taken place, a decision about what appropriate action must be taken. Any action taken should be to help change the perpetrators behaviour. Warnings will always be confirmed in writing to the perpetrator and advice given about the ramifications of further ASB. If a complaint investigation concludes, contact will be made with the resident and closure should be agreed. All closures should be confirmed in writing including a summary of the actions taken to resolve the complaint.
  5. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have treated the resident’s initial report of dogs continually barking and dog faeces in the communal area to the rear of his property as ASB. This is because it would reasonably fall under the category of ‘animal nuisance’ as set out in its ASB procedure. The landlord acted appropriately by agreeing to investigate and visited him the next day which was in line with the timescales of its ASB procedure which says a visit should be carried out at the earliest opportunity.
  6. However, there is no evidence the landlord carried out a risk assessment of the vulnerability of the resident; or that it completed an action plan and shared it with him in line with these procedures. When the landlord subsequently closed the case, there is no evidence it agreed that closure with the resident or wrote to him with a summary of the actions it had taken to resolve the ASB in line with its procedure. Those were significant failings.
  7. When the resident reported ASB in March and April 2022, the landlord said it had written to the neighbour, and it visited them along with the dog warden in May 2022. That was reasonable action to take, and which appeared to result in matters improving for a while.
  8. It was appropriate for the landlord to open a new ASB case in September 2022 after further reports of ASB from the resident in June and August 2022. However, there was a delay in it doing so and again there is no evidence the landlord made an action plan or carried out a risk assessment at that time. That was not appropriate.
  9. Despite opening an ASB case, the landlord told the resident to report the issues he was experiencing to the environmental health team the next month. That was not appropriate because the local council’s website makes clear that any issues in relation to dogs that are fouling on council housing land should be reported to the landlord. The evidence suggests the environmental health team subsequently contacted the landlord and asked it to take action. Despite that, the landlord took no action until January 2023 when it tried to visit the resident. 
  10. In February 2023 the landlord issued a first, then a final, tenancy warning letter to the neighbour in relation to allowing the dogs off the lead and fouling in the communal area. Those were appropriate steps to take in response to evidence from the resident and were in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure.
  11. The landlord did not engage meaningfully with the resident about his concern about the number of dogs the neighbour had. In its stage 2 complaint response it said it had yet to confirm the number of dogs. The resident had been raising concerns about this issue since April 2022 some 10 months earlier. The time the landlord took to address the resident’s concerns was not reasonable given this was a potential tenancy breach.
  12. In summary the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB was not appropriate. It did not take action in line with its ASB procedures. There were delays and periods of inaction. It also wrongly signposted the resident to the environmental health team when it was responsible for the issues that the resident was reporting because they fell under the category of ASB.
  13. Our role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where we have identified maladministration or service failure by the landlord. In considering this we take into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s mental or physical health condition) may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
  14. It is evident that the landlord’s poor handling of the resident’s reports of ASB led to inconvenience, frustration and distress for the resident. Financial compensation of £350 is appropriate in this case. This sum takes into account the vulnerabilities of the resident which meant the ASB and the landlord’s handling of it would have had a more severe effect on him compared to other residents in the same position without his vulnerabilities.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time said it would respond at stage 1 within 15 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. The evidence shows the same officer signed both formal complaint responses at stage 1 and 2. That was not appropriate. Our Complaint Handling Code in place at the time said that the person considering the complaint at stage 2, must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1. This was a serious failing because the second response did not allow for a review at a more senior level which would give a wider perspective and level of expertise to a complaint.
  3. We note also that, at stage 2, the landlord referred the resident to the incorrect Ombudsman. While this was a less significant failing, the landlord should ensure it signposts the correct Ombudsman in its final complaint responses to avoid any delays in the complaint being considered at the next stage, where appropriate.
  4. The landlord’s poor complaint handling caused evident frustration to the resident. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above, financial compensation of £100 is appropriate for that impact.
  5. The findings in this report echo the findings of a special report that the Ombudsman published into the landlord in January 2023. That report found multiple failings in its complaint handling including where the same officer had considered the complaint at stages 1 and 2 of the complaints procedure. In that special report, we recommended that the landlord undertook several improvements in the areas of complaint handling, which the landlord has complied with. This report has therefore made no individual orders in respect of the wider issues identified with the landlord’s processes.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s
    1. Reports of ASB.
    2. Associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord should take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to us:
    1. A senior manager to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the apologies guidance on our website.
    2. Pay the resident the sum of £450 made up of:
      1. £350 for the impact of its handling of his reports of ASB.
      2. £100 for its complaint handling failures.