Birmingham City Council (202309395)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309395

Birmingham City Council

31 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.
3. Handling of the subsequent complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy and lives in a 4 bedroom semi-detached house. The landlord has said that it has no known vulnerabilities recorded on its system for the resident, however, the resident has said that she has complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and mental health issues as well as other conditions.
On 15 November 2022, the resident reported to her landlord that her neighbour was using their property in an “illegal/immoral” way and also reported domestic noise. The resident said that her neighbour’s children often used racist language, made physical threats, smoked drugs and dumped rubbish throughout the street and on her property. The landlord’s notes dated 24 November 2022, show it called the resident about the matter and advised it would be linked to another open case.
On 16 November 2022, the resident said that her neighbour verbally threatened her and she reported this to the police who responded on 17 November 2022. The police told the resident to avoid contact and report any further incidents.
On 24 November 2022, the resident informed her landlord that one of her neighbour’s children was deliberately staring at her through her window and using intimidating behaviour. She said her neighbour’s children often deliberately littered on her property with their friends. The resident said that the ASB was getting her down and she felt depressed. She said that she did not know why her family were being targeted.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 5 December 2022, and the resident said she had been under a great deal of stress and was frightened for her safety. She said that her neighbour had been telling other neighbours that she was a “snitch”. The resident said that the noise, fighting and disturbance from her neighbour had been ongoing for the past 12 months. The resident was aware that there were incidents being investigated by the police, but she did not believe anything would be done. The landlord said it would issue a warning letter to her neighbour.
On 5 January 2023, the resident reported to her landlord that her neighbours were having a big argument and that there had been ongoing incidents of a similar nature throughout the holiday period, but she had been too unwell to report them. The landlord thanked her for the information and advised her to keep reporting incidents when they occurred. A further conversation revealed that the landlord had written to the resident’s neighbour with her allegations. The resident also contacted children’s services the same day and alleged that music was being played at all times of the day and night and she had reported it to the environmental services, but she had not received a response.
The resident reported to her landlord that on 19 January 2023, that her neighbour’s partner approached her whilst she was defrosting her vehicle and shouted that he was going to “throw acid in her face”. The threat was also reported to the police.
On 20 January 2023, the resident reported to her landlord that her neighbours had entered her front garden and called her offensive names and used abusive language towards her. She then said that her neighbour’s partner threatened her life and said he “was going to kill her”. The resident’s son then joined her after hearing the shouting and she said her neighbour’s partner then physically assaulted her son. It was reported that another neighbour witnessed the attack. She reported the altercation to the police and was given a crime reference number. The landlord said it would contact the police and the resident for any updates after 30 January 2023, call handler was on annual leave for a week.
The landlord contacted the resident’s neighbour’s social worker on 1 February 2023 and informed them that it was meeting with the police the following day. On the same day, the landlord called the resident about the incident/alleged assault and the resident said that statements had been taken. The landlord said it would wait to hear the outcome of the police investigation before it looked at whether there had been a breach of any tenancy conditions. It said it would send the resident a link to log incidents directly and it said it would contact her on 6 February 2023, but there were no records to show this action was completed.
On 24 February 2023, the landlord called the resident and she said that her neighbour’s partner had shouted abuse at her daughter. The police had filed a hate crime report for the incident between her neighbour’s partner and her son, but there was a lack of evidence. It was not clear what the outcome of the police investigation was, but the resident said she would contact the police the following week.
On 3 March 2023, the landlord and the police arranged a joint visit to the resident’s neighbours property and acknowledged that warning letters had been sent to two of the alleged perpetrators. In response to the resident’s claims, the neighbour said that the resident made things up. The landlord advised the neighbour not to speak to the resident, to which they agreed.
The landlord called for updates on 14 and 27 April 2023 to ask the resident if there were any updates in regard to the ongoing police investigation. On both occasions there was not and the landlord said it would be back in touch fortnightly to see if there had been any development.
On 19 May 2023, the landlord telephoned the resident for an update in regard to the ongoing police investigations. The resident said there was no update and she felt that no one had helped her. The resident said that the landlord had done nothing about her neighbours throwing rubbish into her garden, racially abusing her and attacking her family. The landlord said that a letter was sent to the neighbours, but it needed more evidence to take further action, such as CCTV footage. The landlord also stated that the incident involving her son and the neighbour’s partner was a police matter in the first instance. The resident said she no longer went outside much and even had to smoke inside as she believed she was being targeted by her neighbours. The resident had to cancel a mental health appointment as she did not feel well enough to go out.
On 22 May 2023, the landlord emailed the police to ask if they could assist with a joint visit regarding the resident’s allegations against her neighbour. The landlord again mentioned that it had sent a letter to her neighbour about the allegations.
On 10 June 2023, the resident reported to the police that her neighbour and their family had approached her front door and shouted racist abuse towards her and made threats to her safety.
On 12 June 2023, the resident called the landlord to raise a formal complaint about its housing officer as she believed the housing officer’s conduct was the cause of her recent issues with her neighbour. According to the resident the ASB had escalated to fighting in the street and the resident and her family were now being targeted with attacks and racial slurs. She said the latest incidents were caught on CCTV. The resident did not feel that the housing officer was protecting her and blamed them for the situation. The resident said she felt “pushed” away by the housing officer and told to complain to the police. The resident relayed that the housing officer said her reports were not a matter for the landlord, however the resident had said that the police had told her it was for the landlord to deal with. The resident wanted the landlord to do something about the situation.
The police contacted the landlord on 15 June 2023, to say the resident had been experiencing ASB issues with her neighbour and that she had made threats to end her own life. The resident told the police that her neighbour and their family approached her front door and shouted racist abuse towards her and made threats to her safety. The landlord said that the police had asked it to raise a complaint.
On 30 June 2023, the landlord sent a response at stage 1 of its complaint process to the resident. It said:
1. There was a door-to-door knocking exercise organised between the council and the police on the resident’s road to enquire if anyone was experiencing any ASB issues. Resident’s were in fear of reprisals and therefore encouraged to report any criminal behaviour to the police to maintain confidentiality.
2. The landlord had correctly referred the resident to the police due to the nature of the incidents amounting to a hate crime/personal attack. It said that if the police required any help with its investigation then it would assist.
3. The local police team had been working extensively through the local area for several months which had resulted in warning letters and legal action against perpetrators. There were currently no new reports of ASB in the area, but the situation was being monitored.
The resident had a call with the landlord on 12 July 2023, where she told the landlord that she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. She said she had reported previous and ongoing disputes with her neighbours. The resident said that she had suffered both physical and verbal attacks (including hate crimes). She believed she was the target of ASB due to information which she believed had been disclosed to her neighbours by the housing officer, and subsequently which put her and her family in danger.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 July 2023. It said:
1. That it had discussed the resident’s concerns with its housing manager, who denied the resident’s claim that personal information was disclosed to her neighbour. It said that it sympathised with the resident’s request to have no further dealings with the officer concerned, as she felt ‘belittled’ by their actions. The landlord had therefore arranged for a new housing officer to investigate the case, but said that the resident had refused to engage with them. It encouraged the resident to change her position to help find a resolution.
2. With regards to the CCTV footage of an altercation that the resident had with her neighbour, the landlord said that the footage showed that both sets of neighbours were shouting, swearing and were both extremely angry during the exchange. It understood that the issue began when the neighbour’s son allegedly made racist comments to the resident’s son and the neighbour had sent the son around to apologise. The landlord said it took the view that the neighbour’s child did not approach the resident’s property aggressively but rang the doorbell and then walked away.
3. It had a duty of care to all residents and accepted that the resident’s expectations were not in line with the actions it would take, as she wanted her neighbour evicted. The police had looked into previous altercations as potential hate crimes, but the investigations resulted in no further action being taken.
4. It acknowledged that the situation with the resident’s neighbour would have been distressing and urged her to document any further incidents and report any criminal activity to the police in the first instance. This was to allow for the gathering of evidence for potential prosecutions. The landlord said it could then consider taking action in regard to the management of tenancies which could lead to potential evictions.
5. It reiterated the feedback from stage1, in that its joint efforts with the police had resulted in warning letters and legal action being taken in the area where there was evidence of criminality. It said it would continue to monitor the area closely.
The resident reported an allegation that her neighbour had scratched her daughter’s car. The landlord said that it visited the resident’s neighbour in regards to these allegations, but the neighbour made counter allegations and denied scratching the car. The landlord was unsure why the police had not been called and said the neighbour had been told not to go near the resident’s drive.
Following the report of damage to the resident’s car, the resident’s son raised complaints about the efficacy of the landlord’s housing officer. He stated that due to the actions of the housing officer it felt like the landlord was not taking the reports of ASB seriously. Comments made by the housing officer such as “its not my job to protect you” and “I can’t take finger prints or take action against minors” left the resident and her family feeling unsupported.
On 29 November 2023, a decision was made by a review panel in regard to starting a community trigger process (local authority review of the landlord’s actions in regards to the reported ASB).
The landlord completed a risk assessment on 4 January 2024 as there was alleged further harassment which included verbal abuse. Further ASB was alleged by the resident in January 2024, with the resident’s neighbour’s son allegedly climbed into the resident’s garden (wearing a balaclava and gloves) and hurled racist abuse, damaged some lights and threw a can into the resident’s garden. The landlord reviewed CCTV footage of the incident and concluded there was no footage of anyone in the resident’s garden or evidence of any confrontation, but said it could see a hooded person climbing over a gate near the resident’s back fence.
On 9 February 2024, the resident told the landlord that her neighbours had thrown eggs at her car, made threats and continued to use racist language towards her.
On 21 March 2024, the resident reported to the landlord and the police that there had been further incidents of ASB as eggs were thrown at her car and her tyres were let down. The landlord advised that based on the limited evidence, it could possibly send out a written warning for throwing eggs but that was it. The resident now wished to be moved to another property on a like for like basis.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

Not every instance of nuisance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has two main duties when ASB is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the ASB. The second is to weigh up and balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is not to determine whether ASB took place, but rather to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took in response to complaints were appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.
Additionally, matters where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the relevant policies ensures that a landlord is acting fairly, its response is proportionate to the issues being raised, and that its approach is consistent, even if it does not lead to the outcome requested by the resident.
When the landlord responded at stage 1 and stage 2, it talked about ASB generally in the area and said it had been working extensively in partnership with the police. The landlord explained in the responses that hate crimes needed to be referred to the police in the first instance which was reasonable, but it did not explain what it had done apart from saying it waited for the police to investigate. It’s not clear that the landlord understood the resident’s complaint properly as it failed to explain the steps it had taken to address the resident’s concerns, particularly given the serious nature of the reports and the fact she felt unsafe in her home. This has been dealt with below under the heading the ‘landlord’s complaint handling’.
Throughout the resident’s reports of ASB she made to her landlord, most reports included racial abuse made by her neighbour, in addition to harassment, intimidation and other threatening behaviour. The landlord’s ASB policy categorises reports of ASB depending on how serious it is with category A being the most serious and category C being more minor ASB. Category A includes criminal behaviour, hate crimes (including verbal abuse, threats of violence, assault based on race), physical violence, harassment and intimidation. The policy says that it will contact the reporter within 24 hours. Whilst the landlord’s notes show that it did speak to the resident on many occasions, it did not often contact her within 24 hours of her reporting category A ASB which was inappropriate. Therefore, the landlord did not comply with its policy and missed opportunities to support the resident at the earliest opportunity.
The resident reported ASB to the landlord via email, phone calls and using the landlord’s triage risk assessment form, but there was no evidence to show that a proper risk assessment was carried out to properly assess the situation and the resident’s safety. Often, the risk assessment form was not fully completed by the resident and details were missing. The resident often said that she felt down and depressed, scared, fearful to leave her home and even mentioned being suicidal at points. Furthermore, the resident told her landlord that she suffered from PTSD and anxiety. The landlord’s policy states that the vulnerability of the complainant will be assessed when a report is made, however, the landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show it carried out a proper risk assessment each time the resident reported ASB, despite the ASB falling into category A (very serious). It was inappropriate that the landlord failed to conduct a thorough risk assessment.
It is reasonable to assume, given the vulnerabilities of the resident, that the ASB may have affected her more because of her conditions, and that the landlord could be reasonably expected to have ascertained if this was a factor in the case. However, this was not explored by the landlord as part of an ongoing risk assessment, nor was it established if additional support was required or could be offered. The lack of proactive measures and effective signposting was unreasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord only issued one written warning to the resident’s neighbour, and although it called the resident on several occasions most of the actions it took involved asking the resident if there was any update from the police investigation (from the incident that occurred in January 2023). The landlord’s policy has a variety of early intervention measures such as mediation, warning letters, diary sheets, acceptable behaviour contracts and good neighbour agreements which could have been useful in preventing the situation from escalating. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not suggest using any of these tools to intervene at an earlier stage.
Furthermore, the landlord only visited the resident’s neighbour once around 5 months after the resident had first reported ASB, and it’s not clear from the evidence whether the landlord interviewed the neighbour each time the resident made a report in line with its policy. When the resident reported the violent altercation and threats to her life in January 2023, which was also a hate crime, the landlord said that it would contact the resident back in a week as the agent was going to be on annual leave. These examples show that the landlord was not taking the resident’s reports of ASB seriously, which was unreasonable, and understandably left the resident feeling that no one was helping her.
The resident wanted the complaint to be kept confidential where possible, but she also wanted action to be taken, and some of the allegations would have needed to have been discussed with the neighbour given the circumstances of the reports of ASB. Further, it would have likely been obvious to the neighbour who the complainant was considering the allegations were regarding specific events.
Whilst the police were investigating one of the ASB reports, this did not prevent the landlord from also taking appropriate action. Its policy states that it will set out a clear action plan to tackle the ASB, but it was not clear what the landlord’s plan was and the resident felt as if the landlord was pushing her away to the police. The landlord should have discussed with the resident what actions it could take, even if the resident declined these options. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not consider any additional measures and did not set out a clear action plan to deal with the ASB, which left the resident feeling helpless, scared and distressed.
Given the landlord’s failures to respond in line with its policy time frames, failure to carry out an adequate risk assessment and lack of an action plan and failure to utilise measures to prevent the situation from escalating, there was maladministration with how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff

The resident felt that she was being victimised and alleged that her housing officer had provided information to her neighbours, and in doing so, they knew she had reported ASB.
The landlord’s policy states that ‘it will try and protect the identity of a complainant where possible but in some circumstances it may be obvious to the alleged perpetrator who the complainant is’. Therefore, some of the allegations in the resident’s case would have been obvious that they were coming from the resident, due to the nature of the allegations. One of the incidents involved an altercation between the resident’s neighbour’s partner and her son and which involved the police.
In order to investigate some of the reports the resident made, the landlord would reasonably have to discuss some aspects of the reports with the resident’s neighbours. As the landlord did so in this case, the neighbours made counter allegations about the resident ‘making things up’. In regards to the conduct of the landlord’s staff when investigating the ASB, the evidence suggests the landlord made appropriate disclosures in order to investigate the allegations.
The resident’s complaint about the conduct of the landlord’s staff included comments made which left the resident feeling unsupported and that her complaint had not been taken seriously. When the landlord investigated the matter, it said in its stage 2 response that it found no concerns, but said that it would provide a different member of staff to deal with the resident.
The landlord told the Ombudsman that it did not look into the communications between the resident and its staff when conducting its investigations to see whether any of its agents acted inappropriately. Therefore, although the landlord resolved the issue, it did not conduct a thorough investigation before reaching its conclusions, which was unreasonable in the circumstances. The failure of the landlord not to carry out a proper investigation would have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s complaint process.
The police had contacted the landlord and informed it that the resident had reported she was suicidal in June 2023. The landlord’s correspondence with the resident following receipt of this information contained phrases such as “I can’t take finger prints or take action against minors” and the resident’s son said he was told “it’s not my job to protect you” by the housing officer.
This approach showed a lack of empathy when communicating with the resident and her family, especially considering the serious nature of the ASB and that the resident was extremely vulnerable. It was unreasonable that the landlord was not more supportive in its communications with the resident and her family given the situation, and this would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles state that landlords should be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right when things have gone wrong. The landlord changed the agent dealing with the resident’s ongoing concerns, but did not conduct a proper investigation to see how its agents were communicating with the resident. Therefore, there was no exploration of the substantive issues which lead the resident to complain and led the resident to believe she was not being supported, which caused distress and inconvenience. There was a service failure here, as the landlord missed an opportunity to assure the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint

The landlord told this Service that a complaint was first recorded following information received via email from the police around 15 June 2023. However, the landlord’s notes show that the resident telephoned the landlord on 12 June 2023 to raise a formal complaint. The landlord has a duty under the complaint handling code to acknowledge and respond to complaints within a specific timeframe. Whilst there was only a small discrepancy on this occasion, it is important that the landlord ensures its record keeping is accurate so that it can comply with its responsibilities under the code.
When the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 30 June 2023, it only responded to one of the resident’s complaint points about being ‘pushed away to the police. The response did not mention other aspects of the complaint such as the housing officer’s conduct, the resident being targeted with attacks and racist slurs, the fact that the resident said some of the ASB was caught on CCTV or that the resident did not feel that the landlord was doing enough to protect her and her family. The rest of the content of the response was regarding generic ASB in the area and not a specific response to the resident’s complaint. The stage 2 response, sent on 19 July 2023, provided more detail about the ongoing ASB, but it still did not address what actions the landlord had taken had taken with regards to the resident’s reports of ASB.
The complaint handling code states that the “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”. The stage 1 and 2 responses would were an opportunity for the landlord to explain to the resident what actions it had taken and why, and what action plan it had in place. Instead it failed to address her specific points. The landlord failed to comply with the code which caused that the resident unnecessary time and trouble to progress her complaint and delayed resolution causing additional distress and inconvenience.
It was inappropriate that the landlord did not address all the complaint points. If the landlord was unsure what the complaint was regarding then it should have made further enquiries with the resident to clarify its understanding. As the landlord failed to address all the complaint points and replied generically, this meant that there was a lack of empathy in its responses which was unreasonable in the circumstances, especially as the resident was very vulnerable.
There was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling and compensation should be paid to address the landlord’s failures. The landlord missed opportunities to support the resident when addressing her complaint and assure her that it was taking her concerns seriously.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in regards to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in regards to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £550 compensation within four weeks of the date of this report, made up of:
1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failings in its handling of her reports of ASB.
2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failings in its response about the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.
3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failures with its complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this report to enquire if she is still experiencing ASB with her neighbour. If necessary, the landlord should then investigate any further allegations in line with its policy and provide a clear action plan for the resident.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.