Bristol City Council (202309131)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309131

Bristol City Council

12 June 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident had a secure tenancy and lived in a 1 bedroom second floor flat. The block of flats is specifically for use by over 50 year olds. The resident has a head injury and a mental health condition, both of which are recorded on the landlord’s systems. The resident was represented by an advocate for part of his complaint.
The landlord‘s ASB policy states that “everyday living noises such as opening and closing doors and going up and down stairs are not ASB”. The landlord takes a victim centred approach which means it focuses on ensuring the safety, rights, wellbeing and expressed needs of residents who report ASB.
Part of the landlord’s ASB process is to undertake risk assessments to work out the immediate risk facing the reporter, and if they have any vulnerabilities, identify any additional support needs, establish the frequency of events and establish the level of current support. An action plan is created which can lead to interventions such as mediation, written warnings, acceptable behaviour contracts (ABC), neighbourhood agreements and tenancy action plans. Further actions include multi-agency meetings (a meeting with different stakeholders such as the police) and ASB case conferences. The landlord will also work with the neighbourhood enforcement team (NET).
The landlord’s hate crime policy says that it has a zero tolerance approach to hate incidents/crimes and is committed to tackling hate and prejudice at the earliest possible stage to try and prevent it escalating. It also uses community orientated agencies to provide support and advice to victims of hate crimes.
The resident had a history of reporting ASB from his neighbour (in the flat below) since 2021 and had raised several complaints. The neighbour’s granddaughter, the alleged perpetrator, was not a resident but often stayed at the property. There had also been counter allegations made against the resident by his neighbour for ASB.
The landlord has said that it first offered the resident a noise app to record evidence of ASB in September 2021. It received a total of 97 recordings on the app, but none of these showed an issue with noise from the neighbour’s flat that met the threshold to be considered ASB.
The reports of ASB mainly involved noise from the neighbour’s TV and the slamming of doors in the neighbour’s property which disturbed the resident, particularly during the night. The resident raised a formal complaint about this in June 2022 and the landlord sent a stage 1 response on 13 July 2022 stating that the evidence suggested it was normal household noise. The resident did not agree and said that his neighbour (or their granddaughter) used a sound bar to amplify the noise on the TV at night. The complaint, however, was not escalated to stage 2.
The resident requested a review of the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB in November 2022.
The landlord responded with a new stage 1 response on 8 December 2022, and stated it would install sound equipment to test the noise. The landlord said that it had previously assessed the noise from the neighbour’s TV by having one officer turn the volume to the highest level in the neighbour’s flat and another officer listen from the resident’s flat. It concluded that the sound was not loud and was not anything more than what could be considered as being within the parameters of the ordinary use of the property.
In January 2023, the landlord used sound equipment for a week to record the level of noise present in the residents property that was emanating from the neighbours property, but the levels recorded did not amount to a nuisance and the landlord had no evidence of noise disturbance that constituted ASB.
The resident reported being the victim of a hate crime and being threatened with violence to the landlord on 15 January 2023. The incident was also reported to the police. The resident also reported cannabis use from his neighbour.
A risk assessment was completed on 23 January 2023 by the landlord.
In dealing with these reports, a ‘good neighbour agreement’ was signed by the resident and his neighbour in March 2023, but the resident stated the issues continued and therefore from their perspective, the agreement had been broken. The resident raised another formal complaint in March 2023, as he was unhappy with how his reports of ASB had been handled by the landlord’s housing officer and the actions they had taken. The landlord provided its stage 1 response around the 11 April 2023 and did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The landlord also stated that the level of noise present within the resident’s property was due to the fabric of the building. The landlord explained to the resident that it would not carry out any works on the building, as it did not see this as being beneficial, and that any works would have a limited impact.
The stage 2 response was provided on 10 May 2023. It stated that the landlord did not consider the noise which came from the neighbours property to be a statutory nuisance and said that it had followed the correct procedures when investigating the noise. With regards to the resident’s reports of slamming doors which he had also reported to the police, it said it had reviewed the information and looked at what the police had said and it could not uphold this element of the complaint as it was “normal use of a property”. However, it asked the resident to continue to complete a noise diary specifically in relation to the door slamming so that this could be monitored.
In response to complaints and reports of illegal drug use at the neighbours property, which were made by the resident, the landlord stated it could not enforce a breach of tenancy unless the individual was found in possession of drugs or dealing them. It confirmed that it could not take formal action, but said if the resident continued to report this then a conversation would be had with his neighbour.
The resident continued to report ASB and in May 2023, the resident alleged that his neighbour’s granddaughter had racially abused him and that he had evidence of this recorded.
In May 2023, after the landlord interviewed other witnesses in the resident’s block regarding the anti-social behaviour, the landlord sent the neighbour a breach of tenancy letter and revoked their licence to have their granddaughter stay or visit the premises; however, this was reinstated the following month after the neighbour said that their granddaughter was their carer. During this period a criminal investigation was ongoing. An ‘acceptable behaviour contract’ was signed by the neighbour on 20 June 2023, but this was determined to be breached by the landlord the following month.
A multi-agency meeting took place in July 2023 involving the police, the resident’s advocate and the landlord. The police said it would be interviewing the neighbour’s granddaughter under caution as part of its investigation. An ASB conference took place on 14 August 2023, where the same parties were in attendance, and it was agreed that an injunction would be sought; however, on the same day the resident handed in his keys and submitted a notice to quit.

Assessment and findings

Before the resident left the property, he approached his local councillor regarding the ASB issues. The councillor asked the landlord to look into who was residing at the neighbour’s address and whether there was any breach of tenancy. The landlord began investigating this in September 2023. As this was not part of the resident’s original complaint and had not been investigated under the landlord’s internal complaint’s procedure, this Service is unable to look into this element of the complaint. However, as the resident had been reporting potential ASB since 2021, the landlord had knowledge that there may have potentially been people living in an over 50 years’ old residence when they should not have been, and it is reasonable to conclude that it could have chosen to look at who was residing at the property sooner than when prompted to by the councillor’s intervention.

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.
The resident had been reporting noise which he felt was ASB since 2021, yet the landlord only completed one risk assessment around two years later. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will carry out a risk assessment for the reporter and take a victim centred approach. This was particularly important as the landlord was aware that the resident had a head injury and mental ill health. The landlord acted against its policy by not completing risk assessments when the resident reported noise nuisance in 2021 and 2022. It is reasonable to assume, given the vulnerabilities of the resident, that noise may have affected him more because of his 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. This lack of proactive measures was unreasonable in the circumstances.
Between September 2021 to early 2023, the landlord provided the resident with a noise app. It completed a noise test between the resident’s and neighbour’s homes, it installed sound equipment and it listened to the resident’s recordings of a door being slammed. As part of its case handling the landlord also corresponded with the police. All of these actions eventually led the landlord to conclude the noise from the neighbour’s property was categorised as normal household noise.
The landlord’s investigative actions were reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances, however, it took around 15 months for the landlord to determine the noise was household noise, which was unreasonable. In managing this delay, the landlord could have used additional tools at its disposal to prevent escalation between the resident and the resident such as a good neighbour agreement, mediation or warning letters (from the tenancy management team). However, it did not take any of these actions until much later when events had escalated. Therefore, the landlord could have done more in its position to improve the relationship between the parties, or as a minimum to prevent matters from worsening and to avoid the situation escalating.
The landlord conducted a sound test of noise transfer between the properties using the neighbour’s TV in June 2022. It did so during the daytime to record if noise could be heard at full volume in the resident’s home. Following its test, the landlord concluded that the noise transfer was categorised as being consistent with ordinary use of the neighbour’s home and that it could not be heard in the resident’s property. The resident made it clear to the landlord that in his opinion, the sound test was not accurate because his view was that the noise was created by a sound bar which amplified the noise at nighttime to a point where he felt it was unbearable. The landlord found no evidence of a sound bar which the resident said must have been hidden by his neighbour or their granddaughter.
Following further complaints from the resident, the landlord installed sound recording equipment in January 2023. This was around 6 months after its previous in person sound testing. It is unclear why the delay in installation occurred and why it only suggested installation of the equipment after the resident asked for a review of his complaint. This was not a reasonable approach to take, and it is clear that this delay contributed to further detriment to the resident who had told the landlord that the noise was causing him harm. Given the nature of the resident’s complaint’s, it was unreasonable for the landlord to conclude the noise was consistent with ordinary use, and not ASB, until it had understood the extent and cause of any noise at night time.
The resident was allegedly threatened with violence and had racial slurs made towards him by his neighbour’s granddaughter at the end of December 2022. There was a discrepancy between the parties as to when the landlord first became aware of the incident. The resident mentioned the altercation to the landlord in an email on 15 January 2023 and said the incident had been reported to the police. A risk assessment was then completed on 23 January 2023. The landlord told the Ombudsman that it was first notified of a hate crime by the resident’s advocate on 3 February 2023.
Given a risk assessment was completed by the landlord on 23 January 2023, which was after the resident said he told the landlord about the alleged hate crime, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident’s version of events that detail when he informed the landlord were correct.
The landlord’s policy states that it is committed to tackling hate and prejudice at the earliest possible stage to try and prevent it escalating; however, the actions taken by the landlord in relation to the hate crime were all made after the 3 February 2023, such as a good neighbour agreement signed on 7 March 2023. Therefore, the landlord did not comply with its policy as there was a delay before it acted. The delay in acting after the resident had made it aware of a hate crime shows that the landlord did not treat the issue as seriously as it should have, which was inappropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord sent the resident a leaflet in its stage 1 response dated 11 April 2023, which explained that the level of noise may have been due to the fabric of the building. It also said that it did not see any benefit to completing any sound proofing works to the building, as it felt this would have a limited impact and it was not obliged to make these changes. However, the landlord sent this generic response about sound transference without consideration of the resident’s individual needs and on the basis of a generalised assessment, and not the specific requirements of the resident within his living space. This generalised approach lacked empathy and failed to demonstrate that the landlord had taken into account the vulnerabilities of the resident in its decision making. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have conducted a proper assessment before sending this response in case any help or support could have been offered.
On 18 May 2023, the neighbour’s granddaughter made a further alleged racial slur against the resident, who had had evidence of the incident. The landlord acted promptly in this case by sending an email to the resident, sending a warning letter to his neighbour and revoking their licence to have their granddaughter visit the property. However, the landlord did not complete a further risk assessment despite the report of a racially motivated hate crime. The landlord’s notes show it told the resident that if he felt in danger then he could temporarily make himself homeless and it could assist in getting accommodation elsewhere.
If the resident made himself homeless, it is likely he would not have been living in the same, like for like, standard of accommodation and would be greatly inconvenienced. The resident was a victim in this scenario, and he was attacked whilst living in his over 50 years old specified accommodation. In this instance the landlord did not provide evidence that it had considered whether temporary accommodation was an option, or that it had considered extra safety measures to protect the resident, or that it completed a risk assessment in light of the continued presence of the alleged perpetrator. The landlord did not take any of these approaches, which was not consistent with a victim centred approach, or a zero tolerance approach to hate crimes. There were failings on the part of the landlord and it meant that it missed opportunities to support the resident and assure him that it was taking his reports of an alleged hate crime seriously.
Just days after the landlord revoked the neighbour’s licence to have their granddaughter around, it made a decision to reinstate the licence as the neighbour said their granddaughter was taking care of them after having surgery. Meanwhile, the police had said they were going to interview the granddaughter as a criminal investigation continued. Furthermore, other resident’s in the block of flats had told the landlord that the neighbour’s granddaughter caused problems for the block and they were fed up with her behaviour and presence.
Whilst the landlord was entitled to make the decision to allow the granddaughter to return as part of its responsibilities to weigh and balance the needs of all its residents, it did not demonstrate that having made the decision, that it took a proportionate response. Considering the level of risk for the resident, the landlord did not complete a further risk assessment or offer further support to the resident. An ‘acceptable behaviour contract’ was signed, but this was not signed by the neighbour until 20 June 2023, sometime after the neighbour’s licence had been reinstated which allowed the granddaughter within the property.
The agreement was then breached a month later and the landlord said it was applying for an injunction. Given that the previous ‘good neighbour agreement’ was also breached by the neighbour shortly after it was signed, it was reasonable to expect the landlord do more to ensure the resident felt safe and protected in his own home, especially as he had vulnerabilities effecting his mental health. It was unreasonable that the landlord was not proactive and did not take more steps to protect the resident once it had made its decision to allow the granddaughter back in the building.
Regarding the smell of cannabis, the landlord responded to the resident in its stage 2 response in May 2023. It stated that this was a matter for the police who had to catch the perpetrators in possession of, or selling drugs for it to take action. The landlord told the Ombudsman that it had visited the neighbour’s property on numerous occasions and did not smell or see any signs of cannabis use; however, it did not provide specific information regarding these visits.
In demonstrating it was taking the resident’s complaints seriously, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to set out its approach to evidence gathering and what the resident could do to assist, such as creating diary sheets to show times of use and instances of use, to encourage the resident to report matters to the police and additionally what proactive and preventative measure it would take, such as site visits or letters to residents. The absence of such measures leads to a conclusion that the landlord failed to demonstrate that it investigated the resident’s concerns about cannabis smells properly which was unreasonable.
The resident’s advocate attended a multi-agency meeting in July 2023 and was unclear why the reports of racism in this case had not been treated more seriously by the landlord. Two hate crimes had been reported which the resident thought were racist attacks, one of which was still being investigated by the police. When the landlord issued its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, it failed to mention the reports of hate crimes and instead focused on the noise elements of the complaint. It would have been reasonable, as part of the responses, for the landlord to have acknowledged the alleged incident that the resident reported in January 2023, and what it was doing to support both the resident and the police with its investigation. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not demonstrate that it was treating the alleged racism in this case seriously and missed an opportunity to further support the resident.
There was no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with any support prior to January 2023, and the resident made it clear that the noise was affecting his sleep which was having a detrimental effect on his mental health. The landlord did provide support from 2023 onwards through its mental health team which was engaged with the resident and his advocate. The landlord was being regularly informed of any medical assistance provided to the resident; however, the resident had been complaining and reporting noise interference for two years prior. In the end the resident left the property as he said he was unable to cope.
The lack of support for the resident’s mental health prior to January 2023 contradicted the landlord’s ASB policy, which states that it would undertake a review of any vulnerabilities of the reporter, identify any additional support needs and establish the level of current support. However, as mentioned above, the landlord did not carry out any risk assessments prior to January 2023 and did not appear to offer support, despite the frequency of the resident’s reports and the fact that he was a vulnerable person. The lack of support was inappropriate given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
There was maladministration with the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB. It did not complete appropriate risk assessments, there were delays in providing sound equipment, there was a lack of support despite the resident’s vulnerabilities which the landlord was aware of, there was a lack of evidence that all issues had been investigated and more reasonable actions could have been undertaken to ensure the resident felt safe in his home.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident raised a complaint in June 2022 regarding ASB and TV noise and the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 13 July 2022. The landlord has said there was no stage two response on this complaint. The resident asked for a review of his ASB complaint in November 2022 and the landlord responded again at stage 1 on 8 December 2022 to say that it would provide sound equipment. The resident raised a further complaint in March 2023 regarding similar issues, and that he was unhappy with how his complaint had been investigated. The landlord responded on 11 April 2023 at stage 1, setting out what it had done so far in response to the resident’s reports. Whilst the resident often made reports and complaints to the landlord, they all covered the same issues regarding the alleged ASB from his neighbour.
The landlord failed to comply with its complaint’s process which is to provide a stage 1 response and then a response at stage 2 if requested. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not respond at stage 2 sooner, especially as the resident had asked for a review to be undertaken. Instead it sent a further two stage 1 responses, which made the complaints process longer for the resident. A stage 2 response which concluded the landlord’s complaints process was not sent until 10 May 2023.
An escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process sooner would have given the landlord the opportunity to fully understand what matters remained in dispute from the resident’s perspective. It would also have given the opportunity for an internal review by a different staff member, afforded it surety of its decision making and service provision, and given the opportunity to provide a response that completed its internal complaint process and allowed the resident to seek engagement with the Ombudsman in a timely manner. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not escalate the complaint sooner, which would have caused inconvenience to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds service failure with regards to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to write to the resident within 4 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 £400 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report, made up of:
1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the failings in its handling of his reports of ASB.
2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the failure in its handling of his complaint.
The landlord is ordered to write to this Service within 4 weeks from the date of this report to explain the lessons it has learnt from this complaint. The landlord should pay particular attention to its process for:
1. Completing risk assessments and supporting vulnerable residents who report ASB.
2. Escalating complaints when it is appropriate to do so.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.