Birmingham City Council (202105757)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105757

Birmingham City Council

27 December 2021


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of an anti-social behaviour (ASB) report made against the resident.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and has a secure tenancy.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out the investigation process. This says that with agreement from the complainant, the alleged perpetrator should be interviewed. If agreement is not forthcoming, it will be difficult for the landlord to take action, unless the complainant can substantiate the allegations through other evidence. It also says that warnings will always be confirmed in writing to the perpetrator and advice given about the ramifications of further ASB.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy says that if evidence is substantiated that ASB has taken place, a decision about appropriate action must be taken. This can take different forms, including mediation.

Summary of events

  1. In October 2020, the landlord received a complaint from the resident’s neighbour that the resident had damaged a window pane after throwing an item towards it. This was apparently captured by video and later confirmed by police.
  2. The landlord asked the resident to engage with the Neighbour Relation Service (NRS). The NRS attempted to contact the resident several times, and by different means, but the resident was not contactable.
  3. Then in March 2021, the resident’s neighbour again complained to the landlord about the resident. They said there had been a verbal altercation and threats made by the resident. The resident’s neighbour provided evidence of this by way of video footage.
  4. On 7 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to give her a second and final warning. The letter said that further to the matter in October 2020, it had referred both the resident and her neighbour to NRS to help them resolve their problematic relationship. The landlord said it had been informed by NRS that the resident had not responded or engaged with the process. It explained it was still receiving complaints from the resident’s neighbour, and confirmed they had provided video footage of ASB from the resident. The landlord said that if further reports were received, it would start breach of conditions of tenancy action against the resident, which may lead to legal action against her tenancy.
  5. The resident denied the allegations made by her neighbour, and asked for the landlord’s letter of 7 April 2021 to be withdrawn. The landlord asked the resident to engage with the NRS. As the original referral to the NRS had been closed due to the resident’s refusal to engage with them, the landlord made a second referral to the NRS.
  6. The landlord later received confirmation from the NRS that the resident and her neighbour had participated in the mediation process and had reached an understanding.
  7. The resident complained to this Service about the landlord’s decision to issue her with an ASB warning. This Service notified the landlord of the resident’s complaint.
  8. On 28 June 2021, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response. It said:
    1. There had been several complaints between the resident and her neighbour. The matter was referred to the NRS, but they could not contact the resident and so assumed she did not wish to engage in the process.
    2. Then in March 2021, the landlord received video footage from the resident’s neighbour of a verbal altercation.
    3. The landlord’s housing officer tried to contact the resident several times to discuss this, but she did not respond.
    4. The resident was therefore issued with a second and final warning letter for breaching the conditions of her tenancy.
    5. It confirmed it would not withdraw its letter of 7 April 2021, as it had acted on evidence available to it.
    6. It was pleased that the resident and her neighbour had engaged with the NRS and hoped that it proved to be successful.
    7. It confirmed it had closed the case, and would not be taking any further action against the resident in relation to these complaints. However, the information would be used if events arose again in the near future.
  9. The resident told this Service she wanted her complaint reviewed, and so we advised the landlord of this.
  10. On 15 July 2021, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. This said:
    1. It had taken the decision to issue the resident with a warning after it received video footage from her neighbour, where the resident used threatening words to her neighbour.
    2. The warning would remain in place, and if there was no repeat of ASB in the next six months, it would not use the letter as a final warning.
    3. After the resident’s neighbour made the landlord aware of the resident’s ASB, its housing officer tried to contact the resident to discuss the matter, but she did not respond. The landlord also received confirmation from the NRS that she was not responding to them either. Though it noted that following the warning letter, the resident did contact its housing officer and informed them that she was engaging with NRS.
    4. It thought the video evidence was very clear and therefore it acted upon it. It acknowledged it had not provided the resident with a copy of the video. It said the reason for that was because it had asked her neighbour if they would allow this, but the neighbour did not think it would be productive as they had moved to mediation with the resident.
    5. However, if the resident disputed that the comments were made in the video, then the landlord would pass the video to the local neighbourhood policing team who could verify the information.
  11. The resident brought her complaint to this Service. She said there was no evidence to support the allegations made by her neighbour. The resident said that in resolution of her complaint, she wanted the landlord to retract the warning letter.
  12. The landlord provided this Service with the video footage submitted to it by the resident’s neighbour.

Assessment and findings

  1. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not; the Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of ASB was in line with relevant policies, procedures and good practice.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy explains that the alleged perpetrator (in this case, the alleged perpetrator being the resident) should be interviewed. The landlord says it attempted to contact the resident several times before issuing its letter of 7 April 2021, but she did not respond. The resident has not disputed this. The landlord therefore acted in accordance with its ASB policy.
  3. Although the landlord was not able to interview the resident, its ASB policy does say that if the complainant can substantiate their claims through other evidence, it will take appropriate action. The landlord was satisfied based on the video footage it saw that ASB had taken place, and that it was appropriate for it to take action.
  4. Given that there had been a previous instance of ASB, the landlord issued the resident with a final warning. That seems a fair and proportionate response, given that the landlord had already asked the resident to participate through mediation with the NRS, but she had chosen not to do so.
  5. The landlord’s ASB policy explains that warnings will always be confirmed in writing, as well as the ramifications of further ASB. The landlord’s letter of 7 April 2021 was therefore issued in line with its ASB policy. The Service will, therefore, not require the landlord to withdraw this letter as the evidence indicates that the landlord’s actions were appropriate in the circumstances.
  6. The resident disputes what was said in the video footage. The landlord did not provide a copy of the video footage to the resident, and explained the reasons for that. The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the video footage and the comments made in that footage correspond with the information the landlord previously gave to the resident. Though it is not known who made the comments.
  7. As there was a dispute over the video footage, and the landlord was not able to provide a copy to the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord to put forward an alternative, which was the option to provide the video footage to the local police for them to verify this. If the resident wants the landlord to arrange for the police to watch the footage and provide their comments, she should inform the landlord directly.
  8. As the resident and her neighbour had participated and completed mediation though the NRS, the landlord made the decision to close the ASB case. It also explained that if there was no repeat of ASB in the following six months, then its letter of 7 April 2021 would not be used as a final warning. That seems reasonable, though it was appropriate for the landlord to make it clear that the information relating to the ASB would be used if further ASB arose in the future.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of an anti-social behaviour (ASB) report made against the resident.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s handling of the matter was in line with its ASB policy. Although, it was not able to share the video footage with the resident, it provided her with a reasonable alternative in order for the footage to be verified independently.