Brighton and Hove City Council (202209776)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209776

Brighton and Hove City Council

5 January 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 response to the resident’s reports regarding his neighbour attracting birds to their balcony.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a flat within a block of flats. The resident’s neighbour lives in the property above his.
3. In or around June 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that there were issues with dog fouling and that other residents had been throwing water and debris from their balconies. He also reported that his neighbour had been leaving water out on their balcony for birds.
4. The landlord responded to these reports by sending letters to all residents, and to the neighbour individually, asking them to refrain from these behaviours. On 12 July 2022, at the resident’s request, the landlord provided him a copy of the letter it sent to the neighbour. The letter noted that the landlord had “received a report” about the neighbour leaving a bowl of water out for the birds on their balcony.
5. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 13 July 2022. He advised that when he had spoken to a member of staff about the neighbour, they had agreed they would advise the neighbour the water bowl had been discovered on an estate inspection. The resident therefore wanted the landlord to write to the neighbour again to correct its first letter.
6. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 26 July 2022. It apologised for the wording of the letter but asserted that its intervention had been “effective,” and that the neighbour would refrain from leaving water on their balcony.
7. The resident escalated his complaint to the final stage on 27 July 2022. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his complaint, which he believed had revealed his identity to the neighbour during a telephone call. He advised that there had been no need for it to contact the neighbour as their placement of the water bowl had already been resolved.
8. The landlord provided its final complaint response to the resident on 8 August 2022. It apologised that its stage one complaint response had not focused on his concerns about protecting his anonymity. It advised that it should not have initially agreed to saying something untruthful in its letter to the neighbour and should have used less-specific wording. The landlord upheld the complaint, advising that it would speak to the staff members concerned.
9. The resident referred his complaint to this service on 30 August 2022 as he remained concerned that the landlord’s actions had led the neighbour to know he had made reports against them.

Assessment and findings

10. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has also raised concerns with the landlord in July 2022 that it discriminated against him. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal term which is better suited for a court to decide upon. The Ombudsman does not have the same legally binding powers which a court has and therefore the resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint further. However, the Ombudsman will consider whether the landlord responded reasonably to his complaint in the circumstances of the case.
11. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that residents are not to take part in activities which may cause a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours, nor should they allow any animal to cause discomfort, inconvenience or annoyance to anyone in the neighbourhood. The landlord therefore had a responsibility to enforce its tenancy agreement with residents to ensure that these conditions were complied with. It would also be expected to take reasonable steps to ensure that its residents’ properties and communal areas were kept clean and free from pests. It was reasonable and proportionate, therefore, for it to write to residents of the estate and to the neighbour when it received the resident’s reports of litter, dog fouling, and residents encouraging birds to come to their balconies.
12. The substance of the resident’s complaint was that he considered that the landlord did not maintain his anonymity in the specific way in which he had requested, which the landlord’s staff member had raised his expectations it would do.
13. While the landlord acknowledged that it did not word its letter to the neighbour in the way he wanted, there was no evidence that it explicitly revealed his identity to them. The landlord’s letter did not mention the resident by name. Given the proximity of the neighbour’s property to the resident’s, it cannot be ruled out that they arrived at this conclusion on their own, on the basis that the resident would be the neighbour most impacted by the water bowl on the balcony. This would be outside of the landlord’s control.
14. In its final response, the landlord apologised for not using the wording he agreed with its staff member. However, it acknowledged that it should not have agreed to use wording that was not true when writing to the neighbour. Landlords have a responsibility to be factual and honest in communications with residents. Furthermore, the content of any letter sent to a resident should be retained for recordkeeping purposes and it had a responsibility to ensure that its records reflected factual events. Therefore, the Ombudsman agrees it was inappropriate for it to have initially indicated it would use the wording requested by the resident.
15. In its final response, the landlord noted that the resident had emphasised the importance of maintaining his anonymity. It subsequently apologised that it had not emphasised this concern in its stage one response.
16. In conclusion, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it should not have raised the resident’s expectations that it would not be factual in its communications with the neighbour, for which it apologised. It was also appropriate that it advised it would speak with its staff regarding this incident, demonstrating it sought to learn from the outcomes of the complaint.
17. The landlord nevertheless had a responsibility to remind the neighbour of their responsibilities regarding feeding birds, and the content of its letter was factual. The letter did not disclose the resident’s identity and its wording was in line with what the Ombudsman would expect. This service has not received any other evidence that demonstrates the landlord disclosed the resident’s identity.
18. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s apology and actions to raise the concerns with its staff individually amount to appropriate redress in the circumstances.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

20. The landlord should ensure that it follows through with speaking with its staff to ensure that communications with residents address their concerns and manage their expectations appropriately.