Birmingham City Council (202011900)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011900

Birmingham City Council

29 November 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 various ASB-related issues involving his neighbours.

Background and summary of events

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

Tenancy handbook:

With regards to ASB it states that the following is deemed to be antisocial behaviour when it causes a nuisance:
1. Playing ball games close to people’s homes or buildings.
2. Riding motorbikes, quad bikes, or mopeds on estates.

ASB policy:

This states that the landlord has a triage system for categorising ASB cases, with ‘Category C – Minor’ including issues such as:
1. …misuse of a public/communal space, loitering, fly tipping, nuisance from vehicles, domestic noise and neighbour dispute.
The policy sets out in general terms, how the landlord deals with ASB cases and the various types of interventions that are available to it. These include mediation, signposting to other support, verbal and written warnings, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts. As well as formal legal action for breach of tenancy conditions.

Scope of investigation

With regards to the resident’s reports of children playing football on the public road outside the resident’s home, the Ombudsman notes that the resident has previously referred a similar complaint to this Service. A Determination (case ref: 201912632) this earlier complaint was issued in July 2020 and the investigation report covered the period from March 2019 up until March 2020. Therefore, this present investigation report will only look at events from April 2020 onwards up until the final complaint response in December 2020.
It should be noted however that all of the evidence provided by both parties has been considered. As such, whilst this report may reference some historical events for the purposes of context, the scope of this investigation will be limited to consideration of the landlord’s handling of the various ASB reports from April 2020 onwards up until the final complaint response in December 2020.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident continued to report similar issues with his neighbours to the landlord after this complaint had been closed and the matter referred to this Service. These issues are being looked at by the landlord and the Ombudsman understands that they are subject to ongoing complaints from the resident. As such, they will not be included within this report.

Summary of events

From what can be ascertained from the available correspondence between the resident and the landlord, there was a dispute between the resident and his neighbour in or around March 2020 about the neighbour’s removal of fencing between the two properties as part of the neighbour’s home extension building works. The resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour had been harassing and bullying him over this issue and the works carried out encroached over the boundary line. This matter was referred by the resident to the local authority planning department and the resident also reported the neighbour’s unreasonable and/or abusive behaviour to the landlord as ASB.
There was a lot of correspondence over the next few months between the parties with counter-allegations being made by the neighbour against the resident, which he felt were maliciously motivated. The landlord explained that as the neighbour was not a council tenant and was a private owner occupier, there were limits to what it could do. Matters were also complicated by the COVID 19 restrictions in force at the time which meant that the landlord was not doing site visits.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 July 2020 and explained that it had spoken to the neighbour about the resident’s allegations of verbal abuse and they had denied it. On 14 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it was unable to confirm if the boundary had been breached or not until an inspection was carried out.
The correspondence shows that although the landlord was willing to carry out an inspection at this time, at present there were bags of rubbish left by the resident in the disputed area which prevented an inspection. The landlord said that this had to be cleared first by the resident.
On 3 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident and said that it did not think that the ASB issues raised by the resident would justify a referral to the Safer Community Group at this time. However, the landlord agreed to keep this in mind and said it would review this option again with senior colleagues. It also agreed, as a gesture of goodwill, to remove the rubbish from the disputed boundary line area at no cost to the resident so that an inspection can take place. The resident continued to remain unhappy and the rubbish remained in-situ.
On 15 August 2020 the resident reported that his neighbours were driving, motorbikes and other vehicles dangerously and going on to the pavement. The landlord acknowledged this and agreed to delay its investigation until the resident was ready (as he was worried about potential reprisals). The landlord also agreed to refer this issue to be discussed at its monthly Local Partnership Delivery Group (LPDG) meeting that deals with wider issues in the community. The resident confirmed on 6 September 2020 that he was now ready for the landlord to investigate this issue.
On 28 September 2020 the landlord wrote to one of the neighbours identified in relation to the ASB reports to make them aware of various allegations being made against them and asking them to cooperate in addressing this behaviour.
On 29 September 2020 the resident reported that a neighbour’s child was playing football on the road outside his property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 September 2020 to reconfirm that it was willing to carry out a site visit to inspect the boundary line with a technical expert after which it would make a decision on whether or not the boundary line had been crossed by the neighbour. An appointment was initially agreed but this was later cancelled by the resident due to COVID 19 concerns.
On 8 Oct 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to explain what it had done with regards to the football issue. It said that there had been three ad-hoc reports of this issue, once in July and twice in September where it was stated that a child was playing football outside on the road. The landlord said that it did not consider ‘the report of a child playing football in his driveway to be an act of antisocial behaviour’ because that would be within the boundary of their property. However, it said it would write to the private owners of the property and ask them to be mindful of their child playing football on the road.
The resident had asked the landlord to write to all the properties on the street to inform them that playing football on the road was not allowed. The landlord said that this would be an ‘overreaction’ given that it was only one or two children involved. The resident also requested that the landlord put up a ‘no ball games’ sign on the street. The landlord was not willing to do so and said that there were already some signs at the other end of the street and it explained that it was the Police who would have to enforce any breach of the highway rules, and it did not consider this was appropriate use of Police resources given the COVID 19 pressures at this time.
The landlord’s case notes show that in addition to writing to the parents of the child, it would also conduct an ‘area survey’ of other residents on the road to gauge how much of a problem the football was causing.
The landlord’s records also note that it spoke to the local Police about the various ASB issues raised by the resident and it was given assurances that the area would be monitored further by the Police.
On 12 October 2020 the landlord issued a letter to other residents living near the resident asking them if they had witnessed any recent ASB issues such as, football being played on the road and motorbikes being driven on the pavement.
The records show that the landlord also wrote to the parent of the child who was playing football on the road and reminded them that they could be fined by the Police for breach of highways legislation. The notes show that as this neighbour was a private owner occupier and not a council tenant, the landlord was not able to pursue any other action. The landlord also spoke to the parent and asked them to be mindful of this issue.
On 23 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to eight letters it had recently received from him about the various ASB issues. It said that it had informed the Police of the resident’s concerns about youths congregating on motorbikes and quad bikes and the Police had said it would keep an eye on this. With regards to potential breaches of COVID 19 restrictions by local youths, it said that this was for the Police to enforce and the landlord is not responsible for policing such allegations. It reiterated its position that a no ball games sign was not necessary. It said it had conducted an area survey and contacted 23 addresses on both sides of the road and it had not received any responses to say they had any ASB concerns.
On 1 November 2020 the resident lodged a complaint with the landlord. The main issues raised in this complaint included, a neighbour’s child playing football outside his property; the landlord’s decision not to put up a no ball games sign; the landlord’s failure to tackle this problem despite the previous involvement of the Ombudsman; youths congregating on their motorbikes outside another neighbour’s house; a neighbour driving fast/dangerously past his property; and a neighbour making false allegations against him to the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP).
On 5 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to explain why it did not think a joint visit with the Police was necessary about the football issue. It maintained that it had spoken to the parent and reminded her of the highway legislation around playing football on the road and it felt that this was sufficient and proportionate in the circumstances.
On 12 November 2020 the landlord issued its complaint response:
1. Ball games – it said it had taken action on this by speaking to the parent and surveying 23 other residents on the street about this.
2. Motorbikes/quad bikes – it had referred this to the Police and said that the issue of dangerous driving needed to be dealt with by the Police. It had also written to the parents of the youths involved as part the area survey.
3. Boundary issue – it had not been able to finalise a decision on the boundary because it could not inspect the boundary; this was because the resident would not remove the rubbish from the disputed area. It had offered to clear the rubbish but the resident had declined this. It had noted the resident’s concerns about site visits and COVID 19 safety precautions, and it had agreed to inspect wearing full PPE and maintaining social distancing rules, but the resident declined.
On 26 November 2020 the resident requested an escalation of his complaint. The resident was also unhappy that in its previous correspondence the landlord had suggested that the resident may benefit from a referral to mental health support services that can help him.
The landlord’s records show that a case review was carried out to look at the actions taken so far and whether this was reasonable in light of the available evidence, and/or if further action was necessary. Given the available evidence, the review concluded that that there was no further action deemed necessary at this stage and the case could be closed.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 December 2020 to confirm that it had closed the case about the football playing. With regards to the boundary issue it would carry out an inspection when the resident was ready. It explained that it had referred the ASB issues to the LPDG but they had decided that it did not meet the criteria of serious and persistent ASB. As for the allegations of neighbours breaching COVID legislation regarding isolation, this was not a matter for the landlord to investigate.
Following further correspondence between the parties, the landlord issued its final complaint response on 31 December 2020. This letter reiterated the landlord’s position on a point-by-point basis in reference to the resident’s comments. The overall conclusion was that the landlord’s position remained unchanged regarding the complaint about the handling of the various ASB issues. With regards to the boundary dispute it reiterated that it would inspect this when the resident agrees an appointment.
On 11 January 2021 the resident referred the matter to this Service. He advised that the complaint was essentially about the landlord’s handling of various ASB-related issues. The resident felt that the landlord had been unhelpful and had not shown empathy with his situation. He was also unhappy with the landlord’s suggestion about a referral to mental health support services.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed its policies and procedures and acted appropriately. It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate the actual reports of ASB or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. Our role is to consider the landlord’s response to the reports it received, and to the formal complaint, and consider whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, in accordance with its policies and its obligations under the tenancy agreement and any relevant legislation.
It is noted that there has been a very significant amount of correspondence between the resident and the landlord. Whilst the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is duly noted, the report will not be addressing each and every specific issue or incident. Rather, the Ombudsman has carefully considered all the available evidence and this report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matter.
It is acknowledged that the resident has said that he and his family felt harassed by the conduct of his neighbours with regards to the various ASB issues he had raised. The resident has also said that the landlord has added to his stress by its inaction and negative attitude towards him. The resident’s feelings are duly noted, but the Ombudsman’s role in such cases is to consider how the landlord has addressed a resident’s concerns and to determine whether its approach was appropriate and proportionate to the issues being reported and the evidence available to it at the time.
It is noted that the resident has requested that all communication between himself and the landlord be in writing only. This has led to a very significant amount of correspondence between the parties and the tone of the letters from both sides clearly shows signs of frustration from both parties. With regards to the resident’s comments about the potential adverse impact on his health and mental wellbeing, it should be noted that the Ombudsman cannot make any formal determination on a possible causal link between the ASB and the resident’s health. The resident would need to seek his own professional medical advice on this matter.
Turning now to the facts of the case and the landlord’s actions in response to the various ASB reports. With regards to the issue of the child(ren) playing football on the road outside the resident’s home, the landlord has evidenced that it responded appropriately to these reports. It was established that only one child was identified as playing football on the road (on occasions he was playing with two other friends, but their parents had not been identified). The evidence shows that the landlord took appropriate action to investigate these reports in line with its ASB policy. It spoke to the parent about the issue and reminded them of the need to be mindful of the highways legislation and that the matter could be reported to the Police for a potential breach.
It must be borne in mind that as the neighbour was not a tenant of the landlord, its response to this issue was limited. Nevertheless, in addition to speaking to the parent, it also handed out letters to the other immediate neighbouring properties asking them if they had witnessed any ASB issues, including children playing football on the road. This was a reasonable response from the landlord and shows that it was actively trying to resolve the issue. The evidence shows that out of 23 letters handed out, only one response was received and there were no responses about children playing football.
The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging that the resident had concerns about the child playing football on the road outside his home, but it was satisfied that this occurred rarely and infrequently and there was no evidence to suggest that this was deliberately targeting the resident. The landlord is required to take proportionate action against reported ASB, and in this case its decision not to write to the 229 other properties on the road and warn them about not playing football on the road was reasonable. As was its decision not to put up more ‘no ball games’ signs on the road.
From what can be seen, the landlord has acknowledged the resident’s concerns about this issue and it has demonstrated that it has investigated those concerns appropriately. The resident may well want stronger action to be taken against the neighbour to stop the football playing but, looking at the nature of the reports, the Ombudsman is satisfied from the evidence it has seen that the landlord responded in a reasonable manner in the circumstances.
With regards to the issues around the fence/hedge and the boundary dispute, the vast amount of correspondence between the parties demonstrates that the landlord has acknowledged the resident’s concerns and has responded appropriately. Once again, the difficulty faced by the landlord in trying to resolve this neighbour dispute is that the neighbour in question is not a tenant of the landlord. As such, despite what the resident is seeking, the landlord can only intervene in limited ways to try and resolve the dispute.
With regards to the allegations of the neighbour being abusive towards the resident this was investigated and the neighbour was spoken to about the allegations. Given the limited independent evidence that was available to verify the allegations, the landlord responded reasonably by acting as a mediator between the two neighbours. But clearly, the lack of enforcement powers against the neighbour was frustrating for the resident.
The extensive amount of correspondence shows that the landlord engaged appropriately with the resident and tried to assist him in a reasonable manner given the circumstances. At the time of the final complaint response in December 2020, the landlord had made several offers to inspect the boundary line and it was also mindful of the resident’s concerns about COVID safety and it acted appropriately by reassuring him that it was willing to take all necessary safety precautions to enable a site visit to be done. It had also agreed to remove the rubbish that the resident had placed in the disputed area to try and assist him. The landlord had also liaised with the local authority planning department and had signposted the resident to other support and advice that may be helpful.
With regards to the issue of the dangerous driving and the congregation of youths on motorbikes and quadbikes, the landlord acted appropriately by liaising with the Police about this and also referring the matter to the LPDG. The resident’s correspondence shows an acknowledgement that the steps taken had resolved the issues as at the time of the final complaint response.
The resident has also said that he was unhappy that the landlord had made reference to mental health support for the resident. As mentioned above, a key factor in this case has been the huge amount of written correspondence between the resident and the landlord. Looking at the frequency, tone and nature of the correspondence and the length of the letters and the language used by the resident, the landlord’s suggestion was not unreasonable in the circumstances.
It is clear to see from the resident’s correspondence that he is very angry and frustrated with the landlord and a lot of the correspondence appears to reiterate and go over the same points time and time again. This may well be in part to do with the resident’s frustrations about the landlord’s perceived lack of action, but looking at it from the Ombudsman’s independent perspective, the landlord’s advice and suggestion was done with the resident’s wellbeing in mind. Furthermore, the landlord has made it clear that it has not made an actual referral for the resident and it has simply given him advice about the types of support that may be available to him should he choose to pursue this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of various ASB-related issues involving his neighbours.

Reasons

The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord duly acknowledged the resident’s concerns and it has demonstrated that it responded appropriately to the various reports and it acted in a reasonable manner and in line with its ASB policy. Looking at the available evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s overall handling of the ASB reports, was proportionate and appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.