Birmingham City Council (202111174)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111174

Birmingham City Council

14 February 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about the security of the building following her reports of unknown persons in the communal garden.
    2. Claims of harassment following the landlord’s decision to issue a conditions of tenancy letter.
    3. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the secure tenant of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat owned by the landlord, which is a local authority.
  2. It is not clear when the resident originally raised her complaint to the landlord. She first contacted this Service in August 2021, stating that she was receiving no response to her complaints. She made further attempts in contacting the landlord requesting a response without success. On15 November 2021 she contacted this Service again stating that her complaints were “being ignored”.
  3. On 6 January 2022 this Service wrote to the landlord about the resident’s claims of harassment and the way it had handled her complaints. It was asked to provide a response to the resident within 10 working days. Further requests were made, by this Service, for the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint between January 2022 and June 2022.
  4. This Service issued the landlord a complaint handling failure order, under paragraph 13, of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme on 28 July 2022. We ordered it to provide a stage 2 response by 4 August 2022.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 8 August 2022. It said it had reviewed the resident’s complaint about the security of the block, following her reports of unknown persons in the garden. It had investigated and established that the people she had seen were family and friends of a neighbour. It said it was acceptable for visitors to use the communal garden and a newsletter had been sent to all residents about security. The condition of tenancy letter in relation to wheelie bins should not have been sent and it apologised for any upset caused.
  6. The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 19 August 2022 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She disputed its complaint definition stating that her complaint was about non-residents residing with a neighbour. It had issued a warning without investigating or speaking with her first. It had not followed its own policies and procedures and she wanted an apology from the landlord for its failures.

Assessment and findings

  1. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Concerns about the security of the building following her reports of unknown persons in the communal garden.

  1. In the landlord’s response it said it had investigated the resident’s concerns about seeing unknown persons in the communal garden. It had investigated and established that the people were family and friends who were visiting a neighbour. It was acceptable for residents visitors to use the communal garden, however, it appreciated that she may have felt there were security concerns when not recognising them. A newsletter was sent to all residents as a reminder to keep communal doors closed in order to reduce the risk of unauthorised people accessing the block or garden. It would always advise residents to call the police if they felt their safety was at risk. It was sorry she felt the content of the newsletter, and response she received from the housing officer, was confusing.
  2. In her correspondence with this Service, the resident disputed the landlord’s definition of the complaint. She said that her original complaint to the landlord was about non-residents residing with a neighbour, and her concerns about the security of the building.
  3. The landlord’s evidence demonstrated that it had responded to this concern on 30 March 2022. It said that it had made an unannounced visit to the neighbour and confirmed that the people were residing there on a temporary basis whilst visiting. The landlord had no concerns and there was no breach of tenancy. It had also responded to concerns about CCTV which adhered to ICO guidelines. There was no evidence that the resident has pursued this matter further.
  4. The landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns about unknown persons residing with her neighbour and being seen in the communal garden. It explained the steps it had taken in relation to her concerns and sent out a newsletter reminding residents about security. Its response to the matter was appropriate as it demonstrated that it took her concerns seriously and fully addressed it. This Service, therefore, finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns.

Claims of harassment following the landlord’s decision to issue a conditions of tenancy letter.

  1. The resident advised that she received a ‘conditions of tenancy’ warning letter relating to wheelie bins. She felt this was unfair as the landlord had not investigated or spoken with her prior to sending the letter.
  2. In its response the landlord said that the letter did not relate to the conditions of her tenancy and she should not have been sent the letter. It apologised and said it had discussed the matter with its member of staff. It had provided additional training and a note had been placed on the case record to reflect that the letter should not have been sent.
  3. The resident told this Service that she felt “harassed” by the landlord after receiving its ‘conditions of tenancy’ letter. This Service appreciates that receiving a breach of tenancy letter may have been distressing for the resident, especially if she was unaware of any issues prior to receiving it. It would have been appropriate for the landlord’s officer to have contacted the resident to discuss any issues with the wheelie bins before writing such a letter.
  4. This Service’s dispute resolution principles are, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acknowledged that the letter should not have been sent and apologised for any upset caused. It also demonstrated learning in that it, discussed the matter with its member of staff, and arranged additional training to prevent such an incident from occurring in the future.
  5. This Service would have found reasonable redress but for the fact that the landlord failed to offer any redress to the resident for any distress caused. We therefore find service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of this matter. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, an order for compensation has been made. This acknowledges how the resident has been affected and the avoidable distress caused.

Associated formal complaint

  1. The landlord’s legal services internal complaints and compliments procedure, provided as evidence in this case, sets out a 3-stage process as follows:
    1. Stage 1 complaints refer to settling the complaint immediately. When a complaint is received the staff member should consider whether they can deal with the issue informally to the customers satisfaction by way of an apology or explanation.
    2. Stage 2 complaints refer to investigating the complaint where a customer wishes their complaint to be considered formally. It refers to responding to complaints within 15 working days of receipt.
    3. Stage 3 complaints, referred to as a review of the complaint, are investigated and responded to within 20 working days of receiving the request.
  2. It should be noted that in January 2023, this Service published a Special Report following a wider investigation. This highlighted the landlord’s complaint handling and non-compliance with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. Since the Special Report the landlord produced a comments, compliments and complaints document in April 2023 which now reflects the complaint handling code. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints with 20 working days.
  3. The landlord persistently failed to respond to the resident’s complaint despite this Service’s intervention.
    1. A Complaint Handling Failure Order was issued in July 2022 ordering the landlord to provide a final response by 4 August 2022. The landlord failed to respond until 8 August 2022.
    2. Its response also stated that if the resident was unhappy with its response, she could ask the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to review her complaint. As her complaint related to housing matters, this advice was incorrect and she should have been directed to this Service.
    3. The landlord offered no apology in its response for its persistent delays or any redress to the resident. When a resident complains and something has gone wrong, we expect the landlord to put it right and remedy any impact on a resident. A remedy of financial compensation is appropriate where the time and trouble incurred by the resident in seeking to resolve their complaint was significantly more than would be reasonably expected due to the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
  4. For the reasons set out above, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. An order for compensation has been made which reflects the resident’s time and trouble incurred in relation to this matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the security of the building following her reports of unknown persons in the communal garden.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s claims of harassment following its decision to issue a conditions of tenancy letter.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £400 broken down as follows:
    1. £50 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its decision to issue a conditions of tenancy letter.
    2. £350 for the resident’s time and trouble in relation to the landlord’s failures identified in its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord is ordered to send a written apology to the resident, by a senior member of staff, for the failings identified in this report.
  3. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord should provide evidence of its compliance with the above.