The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Brighton and Hove City Council (202219065)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219065

Brighton and Hove City Council

23 January 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The resident’s request for a transfer to another property.
    3. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

The resident’s subject access request.

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.

 4. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s request for a transfer to another property aspect of his complaint, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This aspect of the resident’s complaint falls properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This is because the resident’s landlord is a local authority. Therefore, the complaint may not be considered by the Housing Ombudsman. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint, then he is advised to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, at the property. The complaint concerns two sets of neighbours of the resident. For clarity the neighbours are referred to as neighbour A and neighbour B in this report.
  2. The resident is dyslexic and suffers with mental health issues. He has stated that the impact of the anti-social behaviour he has suffered has resulted in a direct, negative decline in his mental health.
  3. In April 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that he was having problems with loud noise coming from neighbour A’s property, which was directly above his own property. The resident had made noise reports previously going back to 2019. He explained that the noise nuisance had started as soon as his neighbour had moved into their property and had continued since. The resident said he had provided diary sheets to the landlord. On 27 April 2021, the resident reported his neighbour to the police for harassment, but the following day, the noise nuisance continued.

In June 2021, the resident withdrew his noise complaint about neighbour A as the noise had been pinpointed as coming from a nearby student property, which he stated had been dealt with. On 22 June 2022, the resident told the landlord that since he had withdrawn his noise complaint, neighbour A had been persistently banging and crashing through the night and into the early hours of the morning. He was not sure if he wanted the landlord to contact neighbour A at that time. This was because he was concerned that it might make the noise nuisance worse. The resident continued to submit diary sheets to the landlord detailing the noise nuisance caused by neighbour A.

  1. On 24 September 2021, the resident advised the landlord that he wished to make a complaint about the noise nuisance being caused by neighbour A. The resident also stated that he believed neighbour A was friends with neighbour B, and that they were conspiring together in harassing him, by making the noise. He explained that he had previously submitted a similar complaint against neighbour B. This was the reason the resident believed they were both conspiring against him. The landlord responded on 27 September that it would contact neighbour A about the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour. It also directed the resident to the local authority’s environmental protection team (EPT). On 29 October 2021, the resident submitted a service request to the environmental protection team about neighbour A making noise at unsocial hours, including loud banging, and knocking. It responded to the resident, explaining that it could not investigate a banging noise, as it had to be a defined activity that was causing the noise. It informed the resident that his complaint was a matter for the landlord as a neighbour dispute, rather than the environmental protection team.
  2. On 27 December 2021, the resident told the landlord that the noise nuisance was occurring daily and believed he was being subjected to a hate crime. The resident stated that the police had said they would open a criminal investigation of harassment by neighbour A following a further noise related incident on 25 January 2022. The next day, the landlord conducted an antisocial behaviour risk assessment and the resident’s answers provided a score of amber / medium.
  3. On 29 January 2022, the landlord and a member of the environmental protection team attended neighbour A’s property. It explained to them that it had received a complaint of noise from their property, causing a disturbance to neighbouring residents. Neighbour A denied the allegations. The visit was followed up by a letter in which neighbour A was warned that if the landlord was to receive any more such reports, then a formal investigation under the environmental protection Act 1990, would take place. The resident was also sent a letter detailing the action taken.
  4. In February 2022, the landlord liaised with the local police service who said that there was no evidence of criminal offences by neighbour A against the resident. The resident continued to submit diary sheets and noise complaints about neighbour A into March 2022. On 4 April 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour involving neighbour A. This included his reports that they had had conspired with neighbour B to harass him. The landlord provided its written response to the resident 4 days later in which it explained the action it had taken in response to the resident’s reports. The landlord also said it would:
    1. Ask the environmental protection team to consider installing sound recording equipment in the resident’s home.
    2. Write to residents within his block and encourage them to report any antisocial behaviour they may have witnessed.
  5. The resident was unhappy with the response provided by the landlord, and on 3 May 2022 requested his complaint be escalated. During this same period, the landlord authorised the resident’s request to install a CCTV camera at his property. In July 2022, the environmental health protection team visited the resident’s property twice but did not witness any noise nuisance. They had planned to visit a third time, but this was cancelled by the resident as there had been no noise that day by neighbour A.
  6. In July and August 2022, the resident continued to submit diary reports of noise nuisance by neighbour A. On 2 August 2022, the resident suggested to the landlord that the loud music might be coming from a different property and that the resident could have been banging in retaliation to the loud music. On 9 August 2022, the landlord visited neighbour A’s property in relation to the continued reports being made by the resident. Neighbour A continued to dispute the allegations that he was causing antisocial behaviour as described by the resident. The landlord found no device capable of playing the loud music as described by the resident within neighbour A’s property. It then relayed this information back to the resident.
  7. On 5 September 2022, the resident told the landlord that neighbour A had thrown eggs at his property on the previous Friday and Saturday night. He had reported the matter to the police who were investigating the matter as criminal damage. The resident said he had captured an image of the offender, who the resident said he identified as neighbour A. Following this incident on 26 September 2022, the landlord contacted the environmental protection team and advised it that the resident was dissatisfied with its response to his noise related nuisance complaint.
  8. The landlord provided its final complaint response to the resident on 25 November 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and awarded him £50 compensation. It told the resident that a number of the concerns he had raised within his complaint were more than 12 months old. Because of this, it was unable to consider a number of his previous points about its handling of his antisocial behaviour reports. It said it was sorry that the resident felt like he had not previously been supported. The landlord denied it had claimed the resident’s claims were false, explaining that it needed corroborative evidence so that its solicitors could prove his allegations to a court, for it to take further action. It explained that no other resident had made reports or responded to the letters it sent out following its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. The landlord said it would:
    1. Carry out a fresh review of the previous 3 months of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. Request the environmental protection team install the recording equipment inside the resident’s home.

 

 

  1. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 27 November 2022. The resident is seeking for the landlord to be held accountable for its failings, which he said has exacerbation his. He wants the landlord to improve its response to ASB, and for him to be financially compensated.
  2. Following its stage 2 response, the landlord has sought further assistance from the local police community support officers in providing assistance in witnessing the noise when they are on duty. It has also sent a number of requests, chasing for the environmental protection team to install the recording equipment inside the resident’s property.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Scope of Investigation

  1. It is outside our role to establish whether someone has committed ASB but rather we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, taking into account its own internal policies, the law and industry best practice.
  2. Section 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. This service has taken into consideration that the resident had reported ASB about his neighbour in 2019 and again in early 2021. The Ombudsman does not doubt that the resident has been exposed to antisocial behaviour for this period. We also accept that the actions of the perpetrator have had a strong negative impact on his wellbeing and mental health. However, in line with the Ombudsman Scheme this service will consider the period from October 2021, which is 6 months prior to the resident’s stage 1 complaint to the landlord.
  3. Section 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body. This service has noted that the resident has made a complaint in respect of the environmental protection team’s response to his reports of antisocial behaviour.
  4. The Housing Ombudsman is unable to investigate complaints about environmental protection because we can only investigate complaints about local authorities’ activities in their capacity as social landlords. Environmental health services are available to all residents of a local authority, not just tenants. Therefore, this service is not directly related to the local authority’s role as a social landlord.  If this is something the resident wishes to seek further, he is directed to the office for environmental protection to pursue this aspect of his complaint. If the resident remains unhappy once he has received a final response from the environmental protection team, he may be able to refer his complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The LGSCO is able to investigate complaints about local authorities’ activities which do not directly relate to their role as social landlords.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy defines ASB as a way to describe a variety of problems which can cause nuisance, annoyance, harassment, alarm or distress. This can range from a relatively minor issue to serious criminal activity. It states it will consider each report of anti-social behaviour based on the specific circumstances, such as frequency, harm caused, and the impact on the victim. It states antisocial behaviour can include:
    1. Noise nuisance, including from loud music or a television. But not reasonable household noise.
    2. Threatening or verbally abusing a person.
    3. Damaging property of graffiti.
    4. Hate related incidents targeting someone because of their personal characteristics.
  2. The landlord says it will work with partner organisations to identify areas of concern at an early stage and take steps to prevent ASB from occurring in the first place. Prior to legal action, it will consider the use of warning letters, mediation, and acceptable behaviour contracts. If these do not work, this policy states it will then consider legal action in consultation with its legal department.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy describes a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, action, or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf. It states its customer feedback team will do their best to resolve a resident’s complaint initially at its informal stage. If a resident is not satisfied with this, a resident can request to submit their complaint to the landlord’s formal complaint procedure.
  4. The landlord has a 2-stage formal complaints procedure. It states it will provide a written response at stage 1 within 10 working days. If it is unable to respond within this time, the landlord states it will update the resident and explain when it will provide its written response. The landlord states it will provide its stage 2 written response within 20 working days.

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

  1. On 24 September 2021, the resident told the landlord that he wished to make a noise complaint about neighbour A. The landlord responded on 27 September 2021 and said it would contact neighbour A and address the resident’s complaint with them. It also sign-posted the resident to the environmental protection team who investigate complaints of noise. The landlord provided the right advice to the resident which was in line with its ASB policy. This states that residents noise nuisance complaints are handled by this separate team (environmental protection) as they have access to recording equipment. This policy also states the landlord will await the outcome of an investigation by the environmental protection team before it would consider taking legal action.
  2. It would be reasonable for the landlord to wait for the outcome of such an investigation before taking legal action because the landlord would need to show the court evidence that the ASB was persistent and severe in order for legal action to succeed. The evidence from the environmental protection team could be used to support legal action.
  3. As part of his complaint, the resident has suggested that neighbour A and neighbour B have been conspiring against him to deliberately cause noise nuisance. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it told the resident that it had found no evidence that there had been a conspiracy between neighbour A and neighbour B in the harassment of him. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s feeling about his neighbour’s conspiring against him. But the landlord’s response to this was reasonable and this service has not seen any evidence to suggest there was a conspiracy against him that the landlord was able to prove. The landlord should only take action against its tenants for ASB based on evidence and it should not take formal actions based on allegations alone without supporting evidence.
  4. The environmental protection team said it would not investigate the noise complaint as it had to be a defined activity that was causing the noise, and the resident had not provided this in his complaint. The resident had described his noise complaint as loud banging and crashing. As explained above, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to assess the response provided by the environmental health team and therefore we cannot comment on this aspect of the complaint further.
  5. The timeline shows that in January 2022, the resident advised the landlord that the noise nuisance included loud music and that he believed he was the subject of a hate crime. He had reported the noise nuisance by neighbour A as an allegation of harassment to his local police service and continued to submit his detailed monthly diary reports. The landlord responded by completing an ASB risk assessment, as well as carrying out a joint visit to neighbour A with a member of the environmental protection team. This visit was followed up by warning letter. The landlord also communicated with the local police service about the resident’s allegations of harassment. The police concluded there was no evidence of any criminal offences. It is not in the remit of this service to consider the action taken by the police as we can only consider the actions of social landlords. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s actions at this time reasonable and were in line with its own ASB policy. It was right that it completed a risk assessment and took this initial non-legal action. It was also good that it sent a letter to the resident informing it of the steps it had taken.
  6. The police have different powers to the landlord to deal with criminal activity such as harassment. The landlord should co-operate with any police investigation, but it would be appropriate for the police to lead the investigation and the landlord would be limited in the action it could take before the police investigation concluded as it needed to ensure it did not interfere with the investigation. Once the police investigation had concluded, the landlord was in a position to take further action if appropriate. However, this would need to be based on evidence and if the police did not have enough evidence to take action. it is likely that the landlord would not have had enough evidence either to support legal action.
  7. The resident continued to submit diary sheets of his noise complaint and in March 2022, a further referral was made to the environmental protection team. The landlord also sent a further letter to neighbour A that as it had received a further complaint following its original warning letter, that an investigation would be carried out into the noise complaints. It also said that legal action would be taken, where necessary. The timeline also shows that the landlord wrote to all residents in the block during this time, encouraging them to submit any reports of antisocial behaviour they had witnessed. It also asked the environmental protection team to install recording equipment into the neighbour’s property. This service considers these actions taken by the landlord to be reasonable. The landlord would be expected to gather evidence before taking formal action against perpetrators of ASB. Requesting witness statements and noise recordings would enable the landlord to gather such evidence.
  8. The landlord was also timely in authorising the resident’s request to install CCTV camera in his property during this period. The landlord would not be expected to fit CCTV itself or pay for this as CCTV would be regarded as an improvement. The landlord is not required to carry out improvements, it is only expected to maintain the building.
  9. This service is aware that the environmental protection team did not install the recording equipment following the landlord’s initial request in April 2022. It offered an alternative by sending field officers to monitor the noise. The Ombudsman understands and does not doubt that by this time, the impact of the noise nuisance was having a detrimental effect on the resident’s wellbeing and mental health. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to wait for the investigation by the appropriate team before it could consider taking any further action towards neighbour A. The landlord would not be expected to install sound recording equipment itself if its process is for the environmental protection team to arrange this.
  10. In September 2022, the resident stated that he identified neighbour A on CCTV throwing eggs at his property. It was right that the resident reported this matter to the police as this was an offence of criminal damage. Therefore, the police were the lead agency responsible for carrying out an investigation into this incident. This service has seen no evidence of the outcome of this investigation by the police. As above, the landlord would be expected to wait for the outcome of the police investigation before taking any action itself against the neighbour. If the police investigation concluded that the neighbour has thrown eggs at the resident’s property, the landlord should consider whether it should take action against the neighbour in line with its ASB policy. If the police investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence against neighbour A then it may be reasonable for the landlord to come to the same conclusion and not to take further action.
  11. Overall, this service considers that the landlord’s actions, communications with partnering agencies and the resident had been appropriate and there was no maladministration in its handling of the residents reports of antisocial behaviour from October 2021 onwards.

The associated complaint.

  1. The resident stated he had previously made a complaint to the landlord in 2021 which was never responded to. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that that it had no record of a complaint in 2021. It advised the resident that if in future, he does not receive a response within a reasonable period of time, he should follow this up to ensure his complaint has been received. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. This service understands the resident’s frustration to the landlord’s response and does not doubt he made a complaint. However, this service has not seen evidence of this complaint nor evidence that the landlord acknowledged receipt of it. Without such evidence, we cannot say there has been a failing in the landlord’s handling of a complaint in 2021.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 4 days, which was in line with its complaints policy. The resident informed the landlord in July 2022 that he had not received a copy of its stage 1 response. The landlord has provided evidence that it sent its written response to the resident. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to believe the resident had received it, until it was otherwise informed by the resident. It sent another copy of its stage 1 response to the resident on 26 July 2022 which was reasonable.
  3. The resident had requested to escalate his complaint on 9 September 2022. It took the landlord 11 weeks to provide its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaints handling code which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. It should have responded to the resident within 20 working days, in line with the code. If the landlord had needed longer to provide its response to the resident, it should have apologised and informed the resident of this in writing, explaining the reasons for the delay and giving a revised timescale for its response. This service has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord made such contact with the resident. This is evidence of poor complaint handling by the landlord. This service accepts the landlord apologised for its delay in its stage 2 response. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the award of £50 was not enough, nor was it in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  4. The remedies guidance is the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation (published on our website). This guidance suggests compensation that the Ombudsman may award following its investigation of a complaint, subject to its determination. Due to the delay, the Ombudsman’s view is that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This service has taken its approach to compensation as set out in our own remedies guidance (published on our website). In line with this remedies guidance, for the distress and inconvenience, the resident is awarded £100 in addition to the £50 already awarded to the resident. The total compensation is therefore £150.

Determination (decision)

  1. In In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42 (k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handing of the resident’s request for a transfer to another property is out of jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £150 within 28 days of this report for errors in the handling of the resident’s complaint. This includes its original offer of £50 compensation that it previously awarded the resident in its stage 2 response, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.