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

Birmingham City Council (202326733)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326733

Birmingham City Council

13 March 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 how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of smoking in communal areas.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a city council. The property is a flat within a 15 story block. On 23 November 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about smoking in communal areas. Both parties corresponded about this over the next couple of months. On 14 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised it had addressed his complaint, and that he could escalate this to stage 2 if he remained unsatisfied.
  2. On 26 September 2023 the resident complained again about smoking in the communal areas. He asked the landlord to install signage in these areas warning residents to refrain from smoking. At some stage over the next few weeks the landlord issued newsletters to residents outlining the penalties which they could face for smoking in communal areas.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 11 October 2023. It advised it had warned residents via newsletters, instructed its caretakers to carry out extra night patrols, and installed further signage in the areas of concern. It also explained that it could not take any enforcement action against residents until 1 or more perpetrators were identified, and advised the resident to contact it if he was able to do so.
  4. The resident was unhappy with this as he considered the signage installed was too small and not detailed enough. He asked the landlord if he could collaborate with it to create improved signage. On 25 October 2023 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on this basis.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 14 November 2023. It explained its caretakes were inspecting the communal areas 3 times per day in the hopes of identifying perpetrators. It noted that, until perpetrators were identified, it could not take any enforcement action. It also explained that it considered the signage in place in the areas of concern was adequate, and that letters had been pinned on notice boards emphasizing this signage.
  6. The resident was unhappy with this, and complained that the landlord needed to act more robustly to prevent smoking. He asked the landlord how best to report offenders in future. The landlord replied and explained how to do so. The resident was not assured by this and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 1 December 2023.
  7. To resolve his complaint, the resident would like the landlord to take further action to prevent residents from smoking in communal areas.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a relevant complaint-handling failure.
  2. The resident has asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of his reports of smoking in the block since 2017. We can see he first complained about this on 23 November 2021. While we cannot see a stage 1 complaint response for this, we can see the landlord wrote to him on 14 January 2022 and advised him how to escalate his complaint to stage 2 if he remained unsatisfied. We can see no indication he did so at the time.
  3. Paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states we may not investigate complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable timeframe, typically 12 months of the matter arising.
  4. We can see the resident complained again on 26 September 2023, and the landlord issued stage 1 and 2 complaint responses in October and November 2023. Since the resident only fully escalated the 26 September 2023 complaint, this investigation will, as per 42.a and 42.c, only consider the landlord’s actions from 26 September 2022 until its stage 2 response on 14 November 2023.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of smoking in communal areas

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that, when investigating reports, it will:
    1. Be responsive to vandalism and damage to communal areas.
    2. Encourage residents to report ASB and make it as easy as possible for them to do this using a range of reporting methods.
    3. Explain its reasons if it is unable to take action, and suggest other alternative courses of action.
    4. Seek to resolve cases at the lowest level of intervention, taking swift and appropriate formal action when the ASB is serious or persistent or when it threatens residents’ safety or health.
    5. Confirm warnings in writing to the perpetrator and provide advice about the ramifications of further ASB.
  2. The resident reported smoking in communal areas on 26 September 2023 as part of a stage 1 complaint about a lack of appropriate signage in these areas. Internal emails from 5 October 2023 note the landlord, in response to this report, sent newsletters to residents throughout the block warning them of potential consequences of smoking in communal areas. The emails also note that signage was already in place. We have seen photos of the newsletters and we consider they comprehensively outline the potential consequences of this behaviour. We have also seen photos of the signage, and we consider they are of a typical size and contain a reasonable amount of information. For instance, they note that the use of electronic smoking devices is also prohibited.
  3. On 11 October 2023 the landlord noted that it had increased security night patrols to try and identify perpetrators. We consider these actions were proportionate and in line with its ASB policy. In its 11 October 2023 stage 1 response the landlord explained to the resident that it had taken these actions, and that it had installed additional signage in the areas of concern. It also explained that, until the perpetrator was known, it could not take enforcement action. It gave the resident a phone number to call if he was able to identify perpetrators in the future.
  4. We consider the landlord acted appropriately here by keeping the resident informed about the actions it had taken. It also acted appropriately by managing his expectations in explaining why it was unable to take enforcement action until a perpetrator was identified.
  5. The resident accepted the landlord had installed additional signage but was unsatisfied with this response as he considered the signage needed to be larger and more detailed. On 14 November 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response and restated the position outlined at stage 1. It included photo evidence of the signage in place, and explained again why it could not take enforcement action until a perpetrator was identified. It also explained how the resident could report specific perpetrators.
  6. We consider the landlord acted sympathetically and appropriately in response to his 26 September 2023 report by installing additional signage in the areas and increasing night patrols. We also consider it kept him suitably updated about its actions by managing his expectations about potential enforcement action. While we recognise the resident’s frustration, the landlord is under no obligation to provide larger signage, and we would not typically expect a landlord to collaborate with a resident on designing bespoke anti-smoking signage. Ultimately, we consider the landlord addressed the resident’s reports of smoking in communal areas in line with its ASB policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of smoking in communal areas.