Bristol City Council (202015210)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015210

Bristol City Council

1 March 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

The complaint is regarding the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the suitability of his property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
3. Handling of the resident’s mutual exchange application.
4. Response to the resident’s repair reports, including with regard to the heating and damp and mould.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the suitability of his property.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member (the landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. As time passes, it becomes harder for landlords, and this Service, to investigate matters as they become historic. The resident moved into his property in 2015, six years before the complaint under consideration in this investigation, and there is no evidence he brought a complaint regarding the suitability of the property when he moved to within a reasonable time. Therefore, this aspect of the resident’s complaint will not be considered here.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. At the time of the complaint, he had resided at his property since 2015 but the landlord has advised this Service he has since moved to new accommodation. The landlord has advised its records refer to the resident’s “mental distress” and “long-term illness” as known vulnerabilities.

Summary of events

On 22 January 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. In his complaint he raised the following issues:
1. He had experienced abuse from his neighbour on moving into the property in 2015 and it had “not stopped” since. He advised the neighbour had “lied about noise” and stated the resident should be raped and murdered.
2. He advised he had had no heating since May 2015 and as a result his property was cold and damp, which exacerbated his chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
3. He “struggled with doors” in his block of flats due to his osteoarthritis and also stated his flat was unsuitable because it was located on the sixth floor of the block and he was prone to sleepwalking.
4. He noted that a mutual exchange had fallen through in October 2020 and requested that the landlord move him “urgently” so he could be closer to his sister for support.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 27 January 2021. It made the following observations:
1. It had referred the resident’s report of “abuse and hate crime” to his Housing Officer to investigate further as it didn’t “appear that we have had any recent reports” regarding ASB.
2. It had also referred the resident’s reports regarding issues with his heating to its repairs department.
3. It advised his “reports will be investigated and any repairs due carried out” but noted that it considered the resident’s “main issue (was) wanting to move property”. It clarified that he had a mutual exchange “in progress” and that it had also made the team who dealt with exchanges aware of the resident’s “urgent need to move” and requested that they make his case a priority.
4. A surveyor would be in touch with him “as soon as they can” to discuss next steps. The landlord also advised that, while it was “operating on a somewhat limited basis during the current (coronavirus related) lockdown”, house moves were still taking place.
Records indicate the resident requested his complaint be escalated at the end of February 2021. He noted that the landlord had still failed to move him to a new property, he still didn’t have any heating and could not get in or out of his bath as he had osteoarthritis. He also reported issues with damp and mould in every room of his property as well as “black stuff coming out of the taps” and a crack outside his front door. He also repeated his report of an incident with his neighbour from 2015, referred to a further incident where a relative of the neighbour threatened him with a knife “about three years ago” and stated that he had had to “put up with DIY from upstairs” between the hours of 8am and 6pm “7 days a week for months”. He considered his human rights had been breached because of “all this going on”.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 10 March 2021 and provided its stage two complaint response on 17 March 2021. It clarified that it under the complaint to be regarding:
1. The resident felt his property was unsuitable on the grounds that he was unable to safely use his bath and that it was on the sixth floor, which was dangerous as he was prone to sleepwalking.
2. A mutual exchange had fallen through.
3. There were outstanding repair issues including problems with the heating, the bathroom was “not dry”, an uneven kitchen, damp and mould in the property and a “6-foot crack” outside the front door.
4. Problems with a neighbour.
The landlord noted that the resident had expressed a desire to move closer to his sister and advised it had reviewed the case and made the following findings:
1. It clarified it had explained to the resident that he was a “priority to move” on its mutual exchange list. It also provided details of how he could contact the Council’s Occupational Therapy department to refer his concerns over “osteoarthritis” and arrange for an assessment of his needs.
2. It confirmed the mutual exchange he referred to “remained open” and noted it had contacted him on 5 February 2021 to clarify if he still wished to proceed with the exchange, and to arrange a property inspection if so. However, it noted it had not heard back from the resident. It advised that there was currently a backlog of property assessments due to the impact of Covid-19 but confirmed that the resident’s property was “in the next batch of properties to be assessed” and he should expect to be contacted within a month.
3. A surveyor had attended the property to address his repair concerns. It advised it understood that the surveyor had “put in place appropriate action” to address the concerns.
4. It stated it had explained that the anti-social behaviour he had experienced was “part of the reason” he had been prioritised for a mutual exchange.
5. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it concluded it had “attempted to inspect (his) property to attend to any necessary repairs” and had also prioritised him for a mutual exchange.
The resident contacted this Service to advise he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He outlined issues with his heating and ventilation remained, advised these were impacting on his health and reiterated that he considered his property was “unsuitable”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

In his complaint, the resident made reference to experiencing abuse and threats from his neighbour in 2015. While he advised it had “not stopped” since he moved in, the landlord advised it its stage one complaint response that it did not have any record of receiving recent reports regarding ASB but that it would relay his reports to his Housing Officer so they could investigate further. This Service has not seen any evidence of ASB reports submitted to the landlord prior to the resident’s complaint so the landlord’s response was reasonable. The actions it could have taken were limited if it had not received any previous reports and if the main incident cited by the resident was historic. As such, it would have been difficult for the landlord to carry out a thorough investigation of an event that took place several years before. Nevertheless, it noted his report of “abuse and hate crime” and advised its Housing Officer would make further enquiries.
However, following the landlord’s complaint response, there is no evidence that the landlord took any further action to investigate the resident’s reports. From the information provided to this Service, the next reference in the landlord’s records to any actions regarding reported ASB do not appear until February 2022, over a year after it advised the resident that his Housing Officer would make further enquiries, when it discussed submitting a Harassment Form to potentially increase his priority for possible rehousing. This was not appropriate and the landlord is therefore unable to evidence whether it took any steps to respond to the resident’s reports, such as speaking to him to gather further details, speaking to the neighbour or considering an action plan. If it made enquiries but found no evidence of current ASB, or it determined that it was unable to investigate historic reports, these steps and positions should be documented within its records but there is no record of the landlord contacting the resident following his complaint, as it said it would do. This was a service failure by the landlord as it cannot demonstrate it followed up on an agreed action, or that it treated the resident fairly by responding appropriately and within a reasonable timeframe.
Furthermore, while the landlord advised in its stage one complaint response that it had not received any recent reports regarding ASB, its stage two response made reference to the fact that “part of the reason” the resident’s mutual exchange application had been approved was down to ASB he had experienced, although the mutual exchange application seen by this Service makes no reference to ASB. These apparently conflicting positions would likely have caused the resident confusion and it remains unclear whether the landlord had, in fact, been aware of ASB issues reported by the resident at the time of his complaint or not, or whether it had carried out any ASB related enquiries that led it to approve his mutual exchange application “partly” due to ASB issues. This was not appropriate and is an indication of poor record keeping by the landlord as well as evidence of poor and confusing communication with the resident over the issue. Overall, the landlord cannot evidence that it responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of ASB. There was therefore maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the issue and an order to compensate the resident has been made at the end of this report as a means of redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange application

Records show the resident submitted a mutual exchange application on 26 October 2020, to swap properties with the tenant of a housing association property in another area of the country. The landlord acted reasonably by writing to the resident the same day to acknowledge the application and outline the procedure for progressing the mutual exchange. This included carrying out tenancy checks and arranging a surveyor’s inspection of the property. The landlord stated it would contact the resident again once the inspection and an electric test had been carried out but advised that this may take four to six weeks.
Following this, it is unclear whether attempts were made to inspect the resident’s property or carry out the further checks such as the required electric test. Internal landlord correspondence from 16 March 2021 noted that “mutual exchange inspections were put in hold for a time”, that existing application were now being “worked through in order of priority” and that the resident’s application was “in the next batch of properties to go through the process”.
However, while it is acknowledged that the coronavirus pandemic had knock-on effects on landlords’ ability to carry out non-emergency inspections and repairs at the time, there is no evidence the landlord had advised the resident that inspections had been put on hold between submitting his application in October 2020 and the landlord’s internal correspondence in March 2021. There is also no evidence that it contacted him to advise when they were likely to begin again or that his property was due to be surveyed in “the next batch”. As such the landlord is unable to show it acted reasonably by keeping the resident updated on the progress of his application and this would likely have left him confused about the status of his application, having been advised in October 2020 that he would be contacted again within four to six weeks, once the inspections had been completed. The landlord’s website also states that it will let residents know the outcome of their application within 42 days, which was not the case here.
Although it is noted that in correspondence relating to his complaint, the landlord had advised the resident on 10 March 2021 that it had contacted him in February 2021 to confirm if he was still “interested” in pursuing an exchange, this Service has not seen evidence of this correspondence. Nevertheless, a period of around four months had elapsed since it acknowledged the resident’s application in October 2020, and it remains unclear whether there had been any other contact with the resident during this period to keep him updated.
However, it is also noted that part of the resident’s original complaint, submitted in January 2021, related to the fact that the exchange had “fallen through”. This Service has not seen evidence to suggest that this was the case at the time, either from the resident or the landlord. In its later complaint responses, the landlord advised the resident that his application remained open. As this Service has not seen evidence to indicate the application had been cancelled at that stage, this was a reasonable response from the landlord and sought to reassure the resident that his application remained live.
Subsequently, landlord records indicate that the other party pulled out of the exchange in April 2021. Although there are no further details regarding why, this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord was in any way at fault for the other party deciding not to proceed. However, the Ombudsman also does not consider it appropriate that the landlord advised this investigation an inspection of the resident’s property had not been necessary as the exchange fell through, as this was not confirmed until six months after it received the resident’s application, and this does not satisfactorily explain why an inspection had not been carried out up to that point. This should have taken place earlier, in accordance with both original advice to the resident and the advice on the landlord’s website, which states it will “send a repairs officer to inspect your home after we’ve received your application”.
There is no evidence that the mutual exchange fell though due to any actions, or lack thereof, by the landlord, and there is no evidence that it had fallen through at the time of the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord’s overall handling of the application, particularly its communication with the resident regarding his application, having already been aware of his vulnerabilities, could have been better and there was evidence of an unreasonable delay in carrying out the checks required to progress the application. This was not appropriate and amounted to service failure by the landlord. An order to compensate the resident for this failing has been made at the end of this report.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repair reports, including with regard to the heating and damp and mould

In his complaint, the resident advised he had been without heating in his property “since 2015”. He also highlighted that the property suffered from damp and mould “in every room”. The landlord’s repair records note that in January 2020, an order was raised to “pre inspect” for “damp and mould, (and) draughty windows” and this was completed on 13 January 2020. It is not clear from the records what the findings of this inspection were, and landlords should ensure they keep a comprehensive set of repair records, including details of surveys and inspections carried out to provide for a thorough audit trail.
However, it is noted that a separate set of repair logs indicate that an order was raised in March 2020 to “fit a fan in the kitchen, vent in the bedroom and wash down affected area”. This indicates the landlord had taken some steps to investigate the reported damp and mould and determined repairs and treatment were necessary, although its records indicate the works were then cancelled in June 2020 as the landlord’s contractors reported the resident had told them he did not want a repair appointment. They advised the resident had explained he did not want a fan installed as he would not be able to afford to pay for it and he had treated the mould himself. The landlord noted it had tried to contact the resident but had not been able to, so the order was cancelled.
It would have been preferable for the landlord to have logged the attempts it made to contact the resident so it could show it made reasonable efforts to discuss the issue with him, particularly given it was aware of his vulnerabilities and that it had clearly identified a need for work to take place to resolve reported damp and mould issues which was then not progressed. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Damp and Mould (“It’s Not Lifestyle”, published in October 2021 and available on our website) acknowledges that there will be occasions where landlords are not able to gain access to a resident’s property. While this investigation has not seen evidence that the resident chased the outstanding work repairs prior to making his complaint, the spotlight report outlines that processes should be in place to follow up with residents to ensure appointments are rearranged and necessary repairs are not left outstanding for an unreasonable length of time. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while there was not necessarily any service failure by the landlord in its initial response to the reports of damp and mould, it has not been able to show it subsequently acted reasonably by cancelling the order and failing to follow it up for almost a year until the resident saw fit to raise his complaint.
Having logged his complaint in January 2021, records show that in March 2021, the landlord chased the status of the order it had raised the previous March to fit a fan, vent and carry out a mould wash. While it was appropriate that the landlord carried out further enquiries regarding the resident’s complaint, that it needed to clarify the status of the original repair order and whether it had been actioned or not is further evidence of poor overall management of the repairs process. Further correspondence sent on 17 March 2021 referred to works being required to “install fan in kitchen”.
Following the resident’s complaint, records show the landlord commissioned a new damp survey, which took place on 21 July 2021. While this was an appropriate step for the landlord to take, it is unclear why this did not take place for another six months following the resident’s complaint, and another four months after the landlord had chased up the previously raised repairs. The subsequent contractor report, provided to the landlord in August 2021, noted the following:
1. “Gapping” below the resident’s bedroom window required further inspection by the landlord.
2. “Symptoms and condensation and mould” were present in the resident’s kitchen, bedroom and lounge, with “black mould growth having formed on the window frames and seals” in each room, although moisture readings from the affected walls returned readings which indicated a “dry state”.
3. The resident’s bedroom was “worst affected” due to having no heater.
4. The resident’s bathroom had “adequate ventilation” via a communal vent system but it was noted the vent had been covered with parcel tape. The contractor advised it had removed this and provided advice to the resident about the need to keep the vent clear and tested the airflow, which it found to be operating at “a good level”.
5. There was no kitchen fan which meant there was no “mechanical removal of moisture at all in the property”. It recommended installing a “continuous running fan with humidity boost” in the kitchen.
6. The contractor also provided a quote to “treat the mould-affected areas”, which it listed as window seals and frames in the lounge, bedroom and kitchen.
Landlord records show works were raised as per the contractor’s quote on 11 August 2021 and that works were completed on 9 September 2021. Despite the initial delay in arranging a further survey, once this took place the landlord responded promptly when raising the works as quote for once it received the report, and these then appear to have been completed in under four weeks, which is within a reasonable timeframe. However, it is also noted that the findings of the damp survey, including the lack of heating in the resident’s bedroom and the need for a new fan to be installed in the kitchen, match those referred to in internal landlord correspondence from March 2021, referred to above. Indeed, the installation of a fan in the kitchen had been identified as necessary by the landlord as far back as the cancelled work order in March 2020. Overall, there was therefore an unreasonable delay in completing the repairs following the resident original repair request and the landlord appears to have effectively waited over a year before commissioning a specialist report which highlighted issues it had already identified itself. This again points to poor record keeping and a suboptimal management of its repairs processes and responsibilities and amounts to service failure by the landlord.
While records indicate the resident raised a further complaint in November 2021 which stated the new extractor fan prevented him from opening his window and that “nothing had been done about this”, there is no evidence of failure by the landlord in this respect as this Service has not seen evidence that the issue was reported to the landlord prior to the complaint being logged.
Regarding the resident’s concerns over a lack of heating in his property, it is noted that in his complaint he advised this had been an issue since 2015. This Service has not seen evidence that issues with the heating were raised with the landlord this far back, so this investigation will concentrate on any reports made to the landlord in the twelve months prior to the resident’s complaint.
Records show that on 29 October 2019 the resident had reported that the storage heaters in his property were not heating up and in December 2019, he had “chased installation of new NSH”. Landlord records indicate that a new storage heater was installed in his hallway either later that month or in January 2020. From the information available, the landlord did not receive any further reports regarding issues with the heating until the resident’s complaint in January 2021.
Following his complaint, internal landlord correspondence sent on 17 March 2021, referred to above, also requested for an electrician to advise the resident on his night storage heaters (NSH) works. It also referred to the need to check for a heater in the living room and hallway and fit a new heater in the bedroom. Further correspondence from the same day indicate the landlord requested a quote for installing a new heater in the resident’s bedroom and repair records show that an electrician attended the property a week later and gave advice to the resident on how the storage heater worked. These were appropriate steps for the landlord to take and it appeared to act reasonably in this regard.
Records show the electrician also noted that the resident had advised he had actually turned the heaters off by the consumer unit “because of cost”, as well as noting that he had no source of heating in his bedroom, which the landlord was already aware of. These concerns were passed on to another member of staff or team but it is not possible to identify who as the records are partially redacted.
However, it is concerning that while the electrician appropriately passed on concerns that a resident, who the landlord knew to be vulnerable, was not utilising the available sources of heating in his property due to financial concerns, there is no clear evidence that the landlord treated this as a priority or sought to expedite installing a heating source in his bedroom, or considered contacting him to further discuss his concerns over the cost of heating or signpost him for further support such as financial advice. This was not appropriate, and the landlord’s records do not demonstrate it did all it could to support its resident.
Records further show the resident chased the landlord in June 2021 for an update regarding his heating, noting that he had been advised a new heater would be installed in his bedroom. From the information seen by this Service, there is no evidence that any further works were carried out until January 2022 when works took place as part of a scheduled Electrical Heating Programme for 2021-2022. While it would have been understandable for the landlord to wait to carry out some works given it had a scheduled programme in place to upgrade works within several properties, there is no evidence that this was its reason for doing so and there otherwise appears to have been a significant delay in progressing the issue and installing a heater in the resident’s bedroom. There are no records that the resident was offered additional heating during this time or spoken to about the financial concerns he raised. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord did not handle the resident’s concerns about his heating appropriately. It did not treat him fairly or evidence that it had considered whether the resident would have been caused greater detriment due to his vulnerabilities.
Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s repair reports and the lack of detail in its repair records. A further order has therefore been made for the landlord to compensate the resident to provide redress for these failings. This Service has not made further orders to clarify the status of any repair issues, or carry out any further inspections, only because the landlord has confirmed that the resident has now moved to a new property. The landlord will be expected to identify and rectify any outstanding repair issues during its voids procedures before reletting the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

While the landlord’s stage one and two complaint responses were issued promptly and within a reasonable timeframe, in the Ombudsman’s opinion they were unduly short and would not have given the resident the impression that his concerns had been thoroughly investigated. Its stage two response was lacking in detail and empathy and did not fully address all the concerns the resident raised, such as the fact he was unable to use his bath. Addressing his concerns regarding outstanding repairs, it advised that its surveyor had “put in place appropriate action” but did not provide any further detail regarding which repairs it referred to, what steps it planned to take or, most importantly, when they would be carried out. This was not appropriate as, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, complaint responses should clearly outline the steps landlord propose to take to address issues raised and set clear timelines so as to appropriately manage a resident’s expectations.
As noted above, there were also contradictions within its responses, initially noting it was unaware of previous ASB reports before stating that these had formed part of its decision to award a priority for a mutual exchange. This was not appropriate and was a further indication of either poor record keeping or that a thorough investigation of the resident’s complaint had not been carried out.
While its stage two response did not address the resident’s concerns about the suitability of his property, its stage one response did advise him to refer himself to the local authority’s Occupation Therapy team. It appropriately provided their contact details. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have shown it had acknowledged the resident’s vulnerabilities and considered whether it could have offered him further support or assistance with making the referral. That it did not do so was not appropriate.
The landlord’s stage two response ultimately did not uphold the resident’s complaint, advising that it had “attempted to inspect (his) property” to attend to any necessary repairs. However, from the records seen by this Service it is unclear when the landlord was unable to access the property, either to inspect or carry out repairs other than one reference made to the resident advising he did not want a fan fitted in March 2020. The landlord should have provided further details regarding how it reached this decision, and it remains unclear on what evidence its ultimate position was based. This was not reasonable and overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint amounted to service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint regarding the resident’s concerns about the suitability of his property are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange application.
3. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair reports, including with regard to the heating and damp and mould.
4. Service failure regarding the handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord advised it would refer the resident’s reports regarding ASB for further investigation by his Housing Officer but there is no evidence that it undertook any further enquiries. It also provided contradictory explanations regarding its awareness, or lack of, ASB issues with its complaint responses.
After initially responding appropriately following receipt of the resident’s mutual exchange application, there was poor communication by the landlord with regards to delays in carrying out inspections needed to progress the application. This meant the resident was confused about the status of his application. However, there was no evidence the landlord was at fault for the other interested party pulling out of the exchange that was initially proposed, nor that the application had been cancelled at the time of the resident’s original complaint.
The lack of details within its repair records means the landlord is unable to demonstrate that it responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, and issues with his heating. There is evidence of avoidable and unexplained delays in responding to both issues, despite the landlord being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and there is no indication the potential additional impact upon him was considered.
The landlord’s complaint responses, although issued in a timely manner, were brief and would not have left the resident feeling confident that a full investigation and review had been carried out. The landlord’s responses did not acknowledge any issues with the repairs and stated that any problems had been caused by a lack of access without providing further evidence or explanation and there was conflicting information provided regarding its response to the reported ASB.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £850 compensation, consisting of:
1. £300 to reflect its poor response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. £100 to reflect the failings in its handling of the resident’s mutual exchange application.
3. £350 to reflect failings in its response to the resident’s repair reports, including with regard to the heating and damp and mould.
4. £100 to reflect its poor complaint handling and record keeping.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reviewing how it logs information relating to repairs to ensure it has a centralised, easily accessible and comprehensive set of records, to enable it to demonstrate the actions it has taken and enhance its management of repair issues through to their conclusion.
The landlord should also consider additional training for its complaint handling staff to ensure complaint responses are comprehensive and that its complaint investigations are carried out in accordance with the principles set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.