Birmingham City Council (202005140)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005140

Birmingham City Council

27 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property and is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a Local Authority.
The landlord operates a three-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that the complainant is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage the landlord will try to resolve the matter immediately, however this is not always possible and if the complaint cannot be resolved it will be escalated to stage two. The landlord will investigate at stage two and provide a written response within 15 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response they can request a review of the decision and the landlord aims to provide a response within 20 working days.
The tenancy agreement stated that the landlord’s residents have the same rights and responsibilities as each other. The landlord would give the resident help and advice if the resident is the victim of ASB and will investigate all complaints of ASB. The tenant must not do anything which causes or is likely to cause nuisance to anyone in the local area, nor do anything which interferes with the peace, comfort or convenience of other people living in the local area
The landlord’s ASB policy states that serious ASB included noise nuisance and verbal abuse or threatening behaviour. All ASB complaints are to be recorded on an electronic case management system which will be updated after each action. The landlord has a number of formal and informal actions to resolve conflict and investigate ASB including; system checks, action plans, voluntary agreements, monitoring, warnings, mediation and working with other agencies. The tenancy agreement noted that the landlord may not be able to resolve all concerns but would work with other agencies to ensure a resolution.

Summary of events

On 22 July 2019, the resident reported allegations of ongoing ASB from a neighbouring property and advised that the alleged preparator had been playing loud music, opened her post, talked to other neighbours about her and had harassed her. The landlord advised the resident that it would investigate the issue and subsequently wrote to the alleged perpetrator outlying the alleged breaches and issued a warning. The ASB case was closed due to non-contact from the resident.
In October 2019, the resident contacted the landlord about further incidences of ASB in relation to her neighbour. The landlord opened an ASB file and an action-plan was agreed that the landlord would communicate with the police and contact the alleged perpetrator and monitor the situation for a further two to three week period.
On 31 December 2019, the resident made further allegations of ASB against her neighbour. The landlord contacted the alleged perpetrator who denied the allegations and stated that the mail opening incident had occurred two years ago and that she had apologised for it. The landlord communicated with the resident that it had spoken with the police and that there was no proof of the allegations but that it would continue to monitor the situation.
On 22 January 2020, the landlord stated that it had attempted to contact the resident on several occasions in relation to her ASB complaint. It stated that if it did not hear from her within seven days it would be closing her case.
On 29 April 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and said that her neighbour and another individual allegedly made a number of threats to her and aggressively banged the main door to the complex which caused damage. She stated that both alleged perpetrators had been carrying knives and that she had reported this matter to the police.
On 29 April 2020, the landlord contacted the police to enquire about the incident and was informed that no further action would be taken against the alleged perpetrator in relation to the incident. It advised that the alleged perpetrator was using the knife in an attempt to open a jammed lock and not to harass the resident.
On 30 April 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and acknowledged that there had been previous complaints of ASB between the resident and alleged perpetrator. The landlord suggested mediation between the pair and both parties agreed to participate.
On 1 May 2020, the landlord performed individual meetings with both parties and a number of resolutions were voluntarily agreed upon. These included that the resident and her neighbour have no communication, they allow each other to live in peace at their properties, they respect each other’s space, they do not threaten or verbally insult each other. Both parties agreed to be referred to Neighbour Relations Service for mediation.
On 14 May 2020, the Neighbour Relations Service updated the landlord and advised that both parties had engaged with the service.
On 15 May 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and stated that the following actions had been carried out:
1. That it had shared information with police and other agencies.
2. That it contacted the alleged offender.
3. It referred both parties to the Neighbour Relations Service.
4. It asked that all communication in relation to the case be sent to the Neighbour Relations Service as a report would be provided to the landlord at the end of the process.
On 28 May 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in relation to an ongoing ASB issue at the property. She also raised the following concerns in relation to her housing officer:
1. That the officer had not put any of her ASB complaints in writing or sent acknowledgements.
2. That her housing offer failed to explain the mediation process.
3. That the officer did not want to speak to her on the telephone.
4. That she wanted an alternate officer to deal with her complaint.
On 28 May 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and highlighted that she had been referred to the Neighbour Relation Service to help resolve the issue in relation to the ASB. It advised that upon the resident’s request it reallocated her case to another housing officer to offer the resident further support.
On 23 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and made a complaint in relation to ongoing ASB issues at the property. The resident also stated:
1. That she had received four letters from the landlord in response to her ASB complaints and one had an incorrect name and the other detailed sensitive information.
2. That she was forced to take part in mediation having expressed that the incident had gone past the mediation processes and was never told what the process entailed.
3. No amicable agreement with her neighbour has been reached and all mediation had been terminated because she refused to apologise, show remorse and she was being subject to lies and false counter allegations.
On 18 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that she did not wish to take up the offer of mediation as the alleged perpetrator would not apologise or acknowledge her actions.
On 10 July 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two response in relation to her complaints of 28 May 2020 and 23 June 2020. It advised the following:
1. It acknowledged the residents’ complaint about one of its officers and apologised for her dissatisfaction. It explained that she should not have been sent a letter with the wrong first name on it and apologised for the mistake.
2. It stated that the operative denied being unprofessional and denied forcing the resident to take part in mediation. It advised that mediation was a voluntary process that the resident could have withdrawn at any stage.
3. It advised that its operative informed the resident of the mediation process and it provided her with an electronic leaflet that explained the process. Furthermore, she would have also been informed by the mediator before the process commenced.
4. The resident made negative comments about the mediator however it was not something that the landlord was directly involved in and it passed along feed back to the service.
5. It stated that it had liaised with police in relation to the incidents reported to it and that the operative recommended that the resident seek an update from the police in relation to the criminal matter.
6. It investigated the complaint about unprofessional behaviour and spoke with the operative and was unable to find any concerns expressed previously. It advised that both operatives were experienced staff and with the exception of the letter error above which it apologised for, it could not find any other errors or unprofessional behaviours that had taken place.
On 10 July 2020, the resident stated she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked for her complaint to be escalated.
On 28 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that the alleged perpetrator had broken both doors at the property by sticking knives in them and then she shouted up to her apartment because she was locked out. The resident also said that the alleged perpetrator was stalking her and following her to the shops.
On 29 July 2020, the landlord contacted the alleged perpetrator but was unable to get through and was unable to leave a message. It contacted the resident and made an appointment for her to come into the office for a meeting.
On 6 August 2020, the landlord and the resident had a meeting to discuss the allegations made by the resident on 28 July 2020. An action plan was agreed upon and the landlord agreed to share information with the police and for the landlord to contact the alleged perpetrator. The landlord replaced the communal front door to one with intercom to provide safe access for residents.
On 6 August 2020, the landlord sent a formal letter to the alleged perpetrator about breaches of her tenancy including:
1. That she damaged the communal door
2. Neighbour Nuisance by shouting out verbal threats.
3. Playing Loud music in the daytime disturbing the residents
4. It asked that she contact the landlord immediately to discuss the allegations.
On 7 August 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its final response and addressed the following:
1. It acknowledged that one of its officers failed to contact the resident to discuss her concerns as he felt the resident complaint was clear and explained her concerns.
2. It advised that it had taken approprate steps to deal with the ASB at the property and complaints made against two operatives could not be substantiated and the issue arose as they were not able to give the resident what she wanted. It advised that this was not a reason for them to be removed from their duties given the limited staff and resources available.
3. It advised that it agreed with the stage one response and unless there is new evidence the case will remain closed.
On 15 October 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the service she received in relation to her ASB complaint.
On 20 October 2020, the landlord issued the resident with a response and apologised for the delay. It advised the resident that it would not be responding to the part of her complaint that involved two operatives as it had already been addressed in its final response and that there was no further new evidence. It addressed a complaint made by the resident about a case that was closed in 2018.
It is acknowledged that there were further complaints from the resident in relation to ongoing ASB at the property but as the complaints were yet to complete the landlord’s complaints process this service was unable to assess them.

Assessment and findings

Anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the property.

The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
It is not disputed that the resident began to raise concerns about ASB at the property in July 2019. The landlord demonstrated that it had opened an ASB case file, wrote to the alleged perpetrator and provided a written warning in line with its ASB policy. Once more information was available it met with the alleged perpetrator and issued a written warning. The landlord attempted to contact the resident on multiple occasions but on receiving no further complaint the landlord closed the ASB matter due to non-contact.
The resident made at least two further reports of ASB at the property between October and December 2019. The landlord immediately opened a new ASB case file and undertook an investigation of the matter. It created an action plan with the resident and agreed to contact the police and alleged perpetrator of the ASB. The landlord advised that it would monitor the situation for the next few weeks. These were all appropriate actions and in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy.
The resident made further reports of ASB at the property on 29 April 2020. The landlord immediately opened a new ASB case file and undertook an investigation into the matter. The landlord contacted the police and was advised that they would be taking no further action in relation to the matter. The landlord appropriately contacted both parties and recommended mediation as this had become an ongoing dispute. Once it was confirmed that both parties had engaged in the mediation process the residents ASB case was closed in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. These were appropriate actions for the landlord to take to investigate reports of ASB and were in line with its policies and procedures.
It is evident and not disputed that the ASB issues at the property had an acknowledged impact and caused the resident significant distress. However, the landlord acted appropriately and took reasonable steps to investigate the reports and acted where appropriate. The landlord had a number of informal actions available to it which are set out in its policies and procedures, namely system checks, action plans, voluntary agreements, monitoring, warnings, mediation and working with other agencies.
Based on evidence seen by this Service, the landlord interviewed the alleged perpetrator on several occasions and worked with external agencies including police to investigate the matter. It appropriately issued the alleged perpetrator with a number of written warnings and spoke with police and neighbours in order to corroborate the resident’s complaint. It worked with both parties to form voluntary agreements and referred them to mediation as a way of resolving the dispute. Overall, the landlord has demonstrated that it acted in accordance with its obligations in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB at the property.
The resident made complaints in relation to the landlord’s staff and raised that it had failed to put any of her complaints in writing and that it had not explained the mediation process. Documentation provided by the landlord demonstrated that it maintained written contact with the resident throughout the process and that it had provided a leaflet in relation to the mediation process. The landlord acknowledged that it had made a mistake in misspelling the residents first name on a letter and apologised for the error and distress caused. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and reallocated the resident a new case coordinator in order to address the issue. Given the circumstances of the case the landlord acted in a reasonable manner and an apology was enough to rectify the error.
In summary, the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s allegations of ASB were appropriate and in line with its policies and procedures. They also reflect the Ombudsman’s experience of similar cases across the social housing sector. It collected and retained reports of ASB, it worked with external agencies and took several informal actions and addressed the concerns with the alleged perpetrator. Overall, the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable given the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The documentation provided shows the initial formal complaint was made by the resident on 28 May 2020 and that the landlord provided a response the same day. The resident raised a further complaint on 23 June 2020 and the landlord provided a formal response on 10 July 2020 in line with its complaint’s procedure. The resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed on 10 July 2020, the landlord provided a final response on 7 August 2020 in line with its complaints process.
The resident made a further complaint on 15 October 2020 and the landlord appropriately advised that it had already provided the resident with a response to part of the resident’s complaint and the other issues dealt with an issue from 2018. Overall, the complaint handling by the landlord was inline with its complaints policy throughout its internal complaints procedure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. Anti-social behaviour at the property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The range of actions taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s ASB reports were appropriate and in accordance with its obligations and policies. It has evidenced that it took proportionate steps to investigate and address ASB whilst maintaining contact with the resident. The landlord offered an apology in relation to an error on a letter and this was proportionate to adequately compensate for the error.
The complaints handling by the landlord was in line with a timely and efficient complaints procedure at all stages of the complaints process.