Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Bristol City Council (202211056)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211056

Bristol City Council

27 February 2023

 

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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) perpetrated by her neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat.
  2. The resident has reported incidents of ASB and noise nuisance from her neighbour in the property above from when the neighbour moved into the property in February 2022. The resident’s reports described incidents of loud music being played at unsociable hours, loud banging from within the property above, heavy items being dropped down the stairs, and a brick being thrown through the window on the front door of the neighbour’s property.
  3. The landlord’s records show that it opened an ASB case on 8 February 2022, provided diary sheets to the resident to record incidents of noise nuisance, and arranged visits to both the resident and the neighbour to discuss the allegations. In May 2022, the landlord looked to close the case as it determined the noise reported by the resident had not met the threshold for statutory noise nuisance and the resident had informed it that the situation had improved. However, after further reports from the resident informing it that the ASB and noise nuisance had returned, the landlord continued to investigate the case and provided the resident with further diary sheets.
  4. On 13 June 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. She described the elements of the complaint as:
    1. She did not believe that her reports had been properly investigated by the staff member assigned to the case.
    2. She had experienced no change in her neighbour’s behaviour and the ASB had continued.
    3. She did not believe that her concerns relating to the neighbour’s behaviour had been properly considered by the landlord.
    4. As a resolution to the case, the resident requested that the landlord act on the evidence she had provided to it.
  5. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
    1. Confirmed that the type of behaviour reported by the resident was unacceptable and that it had a duty of care to both her and her neighbour to resolve the matter.
    2. Explained that it had investigated how the staff member had responded to the resident’s reports. It stated that it was satisfied with their response. It noted that the staff member had acknowledged the resident’s reports, met with the resident and neighbour, worked with the resident to collect evidence of noise nuisance by the neighbour, and spoke with outside agencies including the police about the situation and what support they could provide. It was satisfied that the staff member had acted fairly and had not “taken sides” in the dispute.
    3. Stated that the evidence collected up to this point was not sufficient for it to take action against the neighbour, but that it had looked to use other remedies to resolve the matter such as offering mediation and good neighbour agreements.
    4. Noted the obvious distress that the situation had caused the resident and assured her that it would continue to investigate the issues and work with her, the neighbour and outside agencies in order to reach a resolution.
  6. Following the conclusion of the complaint process, the landlord arranged to have noise recording equipment installed in the neighbour’s property between 13 and 25 October 2022. The landlord received the report from the neighbourhood enforcement team (NET) on 4 November 2022. This stated that the team could “Identify night time banging. However, this is associated with movement and would not be considered unreasonable. There are a couple of incidents of music, the time of day would not be unreasonable and I did not consider the volume was at a level where the NET team could take action. Night time shouting possibly occurred but it was at such a level that it was barely audible. I do not consider that action can be taken in relation to noise nuisance in this case”. The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 November 2022 to inform her of the findings.
  7. In referring the case to this Service, the resident explained that her outstanding issues were that she did not feel properly safeguarded by the landlord as the ASB had escalated and she was dissatisfied with the level of service she had experienced from the staff member assigned to the case. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to be rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. Paragraphs 2.22 to 2.31 of the tenancy agreement relate to nuisance and antisocial behaviour.
  2. Paragraph 2.23 states that a tenant “must not harm, intimidate, threaten or act in any manner that causes or is likely to cause nuisance, annoyance, alarm, harassment or distress to any person living in, visiting or otherwise engaging in lawful activity in or in the locality of, the property”.
  3. The landlord’s website sets out its noise nuisance policy. This states that it will investigate noise complaints when the noise is happening regularly and the complainant has completed a 14-day noise diary. It goes on to describe what type of noise it will investigate. This includes “noisy neighbours, like loud music, shouting or DIY at night; [and] animals, like barking dogs or crowing cockerels”. It also describes the type of noise it won’t investigate. This includes “everyday household noise, such as footsteps, doors closing, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, children playing, babies crying or talking”.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

  1. Once it had received the reports from the resident about the noise nuisance and ASB she was experiencing, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures.
  2. This Service has considered whether the landlord upheld this duty and has found that overall, the landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s reports and in accordance with the evidence that was available to it.
  3. When it received the resident’s first reports of the neighbour making loud noise and breaking the window in the front door of their property, the landlord opened an investigation, provided the resident with diary sheets and arranged meetings with both the resident and her neighbour. This was appropriate and in line with the action this Service would expect the landlord to take. While the neighbour disputed the allegations of ASB, explaining that they broke the window on the front door as they had locked themselves out, they agreed to be more mindful of the noise that they made, especially during unsociable hours. This was fair. The resident was further encouraged to produce diary sheets and download the noise app on reporting ongoing noise. Evidence shows that she was reluctant to make these records and that on sharing some entries, the incidents were not classified as ASB. It was agreed during a telephone call on 24 May 2022 that the landlord would visit the neighbour, nevertheless.
  4. The resident has disputed how her reports were handled by the staff member assigned to the case and stated her belief that the staff member had taken the side of the neighbour in the dispute. The landlord has provided to this Service the ASB case notes and the internal correspondence from its staff members discussing the case. This showed that the staff member acknowledged the resident’s reports, spoke directly to the neighbour about the allegations and looked to work with the resident to collect evidence to support her allegations. When the resident informed the landlord that she had contacted the police about the neighbour’s behaviour, the staff member contacted the police to determine if they were going to take further action. The staff member also made contact with support workers and other outside agencies involved in the case. When the landlord was unable to gather corroborating evidence to support the allegations, the staff member looked at alternative methods of resolution including mediation, good neighbour agreements, and adding additional flooring to the neighbour’s property to lesson the impact of noise transference. These were reasonable considerations in the absence of evidence.
  5. The Ombudsman is aware that at one stage, both parties declined mediation and also that counter-allegations were later made against the resident. The landlord subsequently would have been limited in the interventions it could employ, particularly without continuous evidence being provided. It was reasonable, nonetheless, that the landlord put the allegations to the neighbour and visited the neighbours property on the many occasions that issues were reported. The neighbour was reminded of the actions that would be taken where a tenancy breach was found.
  6. In light of the above, the Ombudsman is unable to see that there is any evidence of maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports. The landlord acted in line with its noise nuisance policy by collecting evidence from the resident then arranging for noise recording equipment to be installed. It also recognised the seriousness of the ASB allegations made by the resident by contacting and working with outside agencies and the police. Given the lack of corroborating evidence to confirm the ASB and that the level of noise was found not to constitute statutory noise nuisance, it was reasonable that the landlord did not pursue formal action against the neighbour at this stage. Moreover, a landlord would be expected to pursue other methods of resolution before taking legal action against a tenant. It was therefore appropriate for it to suggest a good neighbour agreement while it continued to gather evidence. While the upset and frustration that this situation has caused the resident is wholly understandable, it is clear to this Service that the landlord was actively working to resolve the issue. It was also appropriate that the landlord set out its action plan for the resident in August 2022, to enable it to manage the resident’s expectations.
  7. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been reasonable – given the resident’s frequent reports of noise nuisance – for the landlord to have arranged for noise monitoring equipment to be installed at an earlier time. This would have given the landlord a better understanding of what the resident was experiencing during this period, and demonstrated to the resident that her complaints were being taken seriously. It is unclear why the landlord did not do this.
  8. The Ombudsman has not considered this to be a failure, however, as it is noted that although a few months after exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the landlord did arrange this. The Ombudsman is aware that this found the noise to be at an acceptable level and that the landlord confirmed to the resident that there was not a statutory nuisance, but that it would continue to work with both parties to address the noise.
  9. Finally, the Ombudsman is aware that in resolution of the complaint, the resident is seeking to be rehoused. While this request was not raised as part of the formal complaint, the resident has discussed this with the landlord when making ASB reports. An exchange of text messages between the resident and landlord on 10 October 2022 discussed a property transfer and the landlord provided information on how to apply to be rehoused and also suggest an external property bidding website.
  10. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident as part of our investigation. This is because it is beyond the remit of this Service to intervene with the local authorities allocation of housing. Any issues with the how the landlord has chosen to allocate its stock will need to be raised with the landlord in the first instance, before being raised with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Still, it is recommended that the landlord continue to support the resident with her transfer request and discuss her options with her, if it has not done so already.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.