Bristol City Council (202218917)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218917

Bristol City Council

14 November 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 about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about a neighbour.
2. The resident’s concerns about the request from the landlord to remove her pool from the communal area.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord at the property from October 2012 until September 2023. The property is a two-bedroom ground floor flat with access to a communal garden. The landlord owned the building and was responsible for managing the communal garden. The resident lived at the property with her partner. The landlord is aware that both the resident and her partner have vulnerabilities.
On 30 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that she had been assaulted by a neighbour, who was also a resident of the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the report on the same day and opened an ASB case. The resident also reported to the landlord on 2 September 2022 that she had been accused by the same neighbour, on a social media community group, of taking photos of children in the communal garden. The landlord’s housing officer tried to contact the resident, and left voicemails on 31 August 2022 and 2 September 2022.
The landlord received a report on 5 September 2022 about a concern regarding a pool in the communal garden which belonged to the resident. The landlord’s housing officer spoke with the resident on this date and asked her to remove the pool within 7 days, because this was a breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement. In the same call, the housing officer discussed the ASB report made by the resident on 30 August 2022. The resident reported that the police had verbally warned the neighbour. Following this, the housing officer agreed to send the neighbour a warning letter.
The resident raised a further report of ASB on 6 September 2022. She reported that the neighbour’s dog was not on a lead within the communal garden and a trampoline had been left in the garden. The resident also raised a complaint on this date about the request from the housing officer to remove her pool from the communal garden. The resident said that she felt the housing officer had not remained impartial. Between 9 and 10 September the resident reported that she had noted damage to her pool when taking this down, and that her neighbour was continuing to accuse her of filming in the communal garden. On 16 September, the landlord issued a warning letter to the neighbour and sent out an ASB action plan to the resident. The resident was advised to report further incidents to the police and the housing officer.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 27 September 2022. The response said that its position on the removal of the pool remained the same due to the risk of drowning and the obstruction caused. Regarding the resident’s complaint about the handling of the ASB reports, the landlord said it received counter complaints by both parties and had to remain impartial until evidence was obtained to determine the outcome. On the same date, the resident confirmed to the landlord that she had removed the pool from the communal garden and said no further incidents had taken place. The resident advised she had received contact from victim support and had safety alarms installed in the property.
The resident escalated her complaint on 3 October 2022. The resident said that she had experienced criminal damage and abuse online from the neighbour. The resident also stated that she remained unhappy with the contact from the housing officer regarding the pool. She said that she was a vulnerable resident, and the housing officer should have called her on 5 September 2022 to discuss the reported ASB rather than to request the removal of the pool. On 4 October 2022, the resident reported that the police had been in contact with her about filming in the communal garden. The resident explained that the indoor camera was for her own safety following the ASB incidents. The resident also said that the situation was affecting her mental health.
The case was raised at a multi-agency meeting on 5 October 2022, in reference to the resident’s camera facing the communal garden. On 25October 2022, the housing officer contacted the resident and updated her on the ASB case. The resident confirmed she had repositioned the camera away from the garden.During the call, the resident explained the impact the ASB had on the wellbeing of both her and her partner and that she felt unsafe. The housing officer discussed with the resident the possibility of moving to another property with its own garden and offered support with this. Following this, the resident contacted the landlord on 27 October 2022 and said she believed the neighbour had been given a verbal warning only, rather than an official one. The resident also said she was a vulnerable resident and had felt a lack of duty of care.
In the landlord’s final response, issued on 1 November 2022, it reconfirmed its position on the removal of the pool. The landlord said that it was arranging for the trampoline the resident had brought to its attention, to be removed. Regarding the handling of the reports of the ASB, the landlord said it could not take action over the neighbour being in the communal space. It set out the action it could take if the reported issues escalated. In its final response, the landlord also apologised for the resident feeling distressed following the call from the housing officer about the removal of the pool and confirmed that the housing officer would continue to support the resident with moving to another property. The resident remained dissatisfied with the response from the landlord and contacted this Service in November 2022 to request an investigation. The initial ASB case was closed on 23 November 2022 and an acknowledgment was sent to the resident. The resident confirmed to this Service that she has now moved into a new property via a home exchange.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The resident raised further reports of ASB after 22 November 2022. This report considered matters from the date of the resident’s reports of ASB on 30 August 2022, to the date of the landlord’s final response on 1 November 2022. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about a neighbour.

The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if antisocial behaviour occurred, or which party is responsible. It is for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, residents must not harm, intimidate, threaten, or act in any manner that causes or is likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress to any person living in or in the locality of the property. The tenancy agreement also states that residents must not allow any animal owned by them or a visitor to their property to foul within the communal area without cleaning it up immediately. It also says that all dogs must be get on a lead in communal areas. The landlord can take action if a resident breaks any terms of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it operates a stepped approach to resolve an issue of ASB, using the least intrusive interventions in the first instance, followed by increasing levels of intervention. The policy sets out the action it will take in response to reports of ASB which include:
1. Informal investigation, involving engaging with the subject of the ASB as well as the reporter.
2. Risk assessments to provide a framework for measuring the severity and persistence of issues. This considers the immediate risk of the report and cross references other factors which may disproportionately and negatively affect the reporter or subject such as vulnerability.
3. Action plans which capture the outcome of the discussion with a resident following a complaint made, and at review points. This also confirms when a case will be reviewed and is a formal record of agreed actions.
4. Case reviews that will take place on agreed date and times. Where additional reports of serious incidents are made in the intervening period, the landlord will contact in reasonable time and where necessary complete a further risk assessment and a new action plan.
5. Interventions are used to fulfil agreed actions, these include referrals for support, collaborating with partner agencies, verbal warnings, written warnings, acceptable behaviour contracts, and tenancy action plans.
6. Incident diaries are used to gather information to gain a clear understanding and build evidence to support future interventions.
7. Mediation.
8. Escalation will take place where initial interventions have not led to a resolution or where the ASB has not improved.
9. Formal ASB case management as a result of an escalation, in which an ASB officer will lead on the case once formal action is agreed.
10. Formal action in the form of either tenancy or enforcement action.
The ASB policy also states that the landlord aims to respond to reports of ASB swifty, keep victims informed and manage expectations. The policy sets out that the landlord takes a victim centred approach, focusing on ensuring the safety, rights, wellbeing, expressed needs and choices of the reporters when responding to ASB.
When ASB is reported, it is necessary for the landlord to respond in accordance with its ASB policies and deal with reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner. The landlord must consider its obligation as landlord to treat allegations from all its customers in a consistent and evidence-led way.
Following the resident’s report of ASB on 30 August 2022, the landlord sent a letter of acknowledgement and set up an ASB case on the same day. The tenant handbook states that when the landlord receives a report of ASB, the resident reporting this will be contacted by a housing officer to agree what action can be taken to help resolve the matter. A housing officer attempted to contact the resident to discuss the report of ASB on 31 August 2022 and 2 September 2022 and left voicemails for the resident. On 5 September, the housing officer spoke with the resident about the incident. An action was agreed to send the neighbour involved a warning letter. The resident was informed to contact the landlord if she experienced any further incidents. This action followed the procedures set out in the landlord’s ASB policy.
On 6 September, the resident reported that the neighbour’s dog was not on a lead in the communal garden. It is evident that the landlord took informal action by verbally warning the neighbour and reminding them of their obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement in a telephone call and evidence of this was provided to this Service. The action taken by the landlord was proportionate and appropriate, in line with its ASB policy. It was also in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement which stated that the landlord can take action if a resident breaks any terms of the tenancy agreement.
This Service has been provided with evidence to demonstrate that the landlord investigated the resident’s initial ASB report with both parties. This was in accordance with the requirements of its ASB policy. The landlord said in its complaint responses that it had received conflicting accounts of the initial report of ASB and without further evidence it was not able to reach a conclusion. This was a fair response from the landlord in consideration of the evidence it had at the time. However, it was not clear from the evidence provided if the counter reports were explained to the resident at the time of the incident. The landlord should have communicated this to the resident at the time, to ensure clarity on the reasons it was unable to take further action at that stage.
As set out in the landlord’s ASB policy, landlords can pursue a range of measures against tenants for ASB. Landlords can take action against tenants for ASB which may result in the tenant being issued with an injunction to cease their behaviour or risk eviction. The initiation of possession action should be considered as a last resort and when pursuing this, the landlord would be expected to show the court extensive evidence that the behaviour was severe and persistent. The landlord would also usually be expected to demonstrate that informal attempts to resolve the ASB such as mediation and tenancy warnings had been attempted previously.
The landlord demonstrated that it had taken reasonable steps in line with its policy to attempt to resolve the ASB through informal measures. This was evidenced by the warning letter sent to the neighbour on 16 September 2022. At the time the landlord had received conflicting reports of the ASB. This Service had not seen evidence that the information available to the landlord at this time warranted further action against the neighbour.
An action plan was sent to the resident on 16 September 2022, which detailed that the ASB report was being investigated and confirmed that a warning letter had been sent to the neighbour. The landlord further recommended that the resident keep a diary of any further incidents. It said that to act against those responsible for ASB, it would need as much evidence of on-going problems as possible. The action plan also included information about mediation, and the offer of a face-to-face meeting. The action plan was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. It would be expected of the landlord to offer an action such as keeping a diary of incidents to build up further evidence. This demonstrated that the landlord had followed an evidence-led approach.
Within the landlord’s ASB policy, it says that it will manage expectations. This is evident in the landlord’s record of the ASB case review update on 25 October 2022. During this call, the resident noted concerns about the neighbour walking past her window in the communal garden. The housing officer told the resident that the landlord could not take action because the garden was communal. The landlord also confirmed this in its stage two response and set out the instances in which it could act.
This Service was provided with evidence to show that the landlord engaged in multi-agency working. It was noted that a police led multi-agency meeting took place on 5 October 2022 in relation to the accusations of the resident filming in the communal garden. During which, the ASB case was discussed, and actions agreed. This showed good practice and was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
The landlord also showed that it followed its ASB policy in arranging for case reviews to take place. On each update, the landlord informed the resident of when it would next review the case with her. Calls to review the ASB case took place between the landlord and the resident on 27 September and then again on 25 October 2022, in which it was agreed that the landlord would contact the resident again within 3-4 weeks.
On several occasions the resident brought to the attention of the landlord that she was a vulnerable resident and provided details of health vulnerabilities for both her and her partner. The resident referred to this in telephone calls, emails and online ASB reports made during the complaint period. The landlord confirmed that it had vulnerabilities recorded for the resident and her partner. However, the landlord has not evidenced that a risk assessment of the resident’s circumstances was carried out. This was not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which says that risk assessments will cross reference other factors which may disproportionately and negatively affect the reporter or subject, such as vulnerability, with the immediate risk. The landlord therefore failed to demonstrate that it took the resident’s vulnerabilities into consideration when making decisions about the actions taken.
While the landlord acted promptly in contacting the resident about her initial ASB complaint, it did not take sufficient steps to ensure the resident received support while the situation remained unresolved. The housing officer attempted to contact the resident on 16 September 2022, to discuss her reports of damage to her pool and the reports of the accusation of filming made on 9 and 10 September. The voicemail left advised the resident that the housing officer was on leave and would contact the resident on 27 September 2022.
Following this, it was not possible to establish the extent of the support offered to the resident outside of the case review calls. Between the ASB case review call on 27 September and the next scheduled call on 25 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on further occasions to discuss the existing ASB case. The resident made the following reports during this time:
1. On 1 October, the resident completed an online ASB report form detailing that she received constant harassment from her neighbour who had accused her of filming in the communal garden.
2. On 3 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to report the neighbour had moved a trampoline in the communal garden. The resident also submitted a separate complaint escalation on this date.
3. On 4 October, the resident submitted an online ASB report form and said that the police had called her to discuss her filming in the communal garden. The resident stated that this was not true and that she wanted the neighbour to be evicted. The resident also said the situation was having an impact on her mental health and the health of her partner.
4. On 7 October 2022, the resident called the landlord to report that the neighbour had looked into a petition to evict her. The resident also asked for an update on the ASB case.
5. On 10 October, the resident completed an online ASB report form, in which she said the neighbour was overheard saying he would get her evicted.
The further reports made evidenced an escalation of the situation for the resident and showed her increased concern. The landlord did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that during this time it responded to these issues raised, until the 25 October in which the ASB case review call took place. This evidenced a service failure on the part of the landlord. The landlord should have considered the resident’s vulnerability and ensured it responded to her contact within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord had not followed its policy of responding to complaints of reports of ASB in a timely manner. As a result of the failure of take prompt action, the landlord missed the opportunity to take action which may have stopped the escalation of the situation.
Furthermore, the resident was clear in her correspondence on the impact the situation was having on her welfare. The resident had previously referred to feeling unsafe in her home, and the landlord was aware that she had safety alarms installed in the property following the initial ASB incident with the neighbour. The lack of contact between the case review calls caused the resident further distress. In view of the resident’s known vulnerabilities, the landlord should have made efforts to contact the resident between the ASB case update calls to check if the resident needed any additional support. More frequent welfare calls would have been appropriate.
During the complaint process, the resident raised concerns about the support received from the housing officer. This Service, when investigating a complaint about a landlord, will consider the response of the landlord as a whole, and will only comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual.
When a resident raises concerns about staff conduct, it is expected that the landlord conduct a thorough investigation into these concerns. In both its stage one and two complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the housing officer not coming across as expected by the resident during the telephone call on 5 September 2022. It also demonstrated that it had investigated this concern and explained the impartiality of the housing officer. This Service acknowledged that the subject of the telephone call may not have been what the resident expected and caused the resident distress. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer this apology for the distress caused by the call.
The landlord highlighted that the housing officer had offered further support to the resident with moving to another property. This was evidenced in the call between the landlord and resident on 25 October 2022. In this call, the housing officer offered to provide support to the resident if she decided to move. This action was in line with the ASB policy which says that the landlord takes a victim centred approach focusing on ensuring expressed needs and choices. The supported offered at this time was proportionate and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
In conclusion, overall, the landlord had taken actions in line with its policy and procedures when responding to the resident’s initial reports of ASB. However, there was evidence of communication failures during this time. The landlord had failed to demonstrate that it had fully taken the resident’s vulnerabilities into consideration when assessing the appropriate level of communication. Therefore, the level of communication was unreasonable at times and caused the resident further distress. There was also a failure to act on the resident’s further reports of ASB which showed a potential escalation of the situation for the resident.
Overall, in consideration of all the circumstances there was maladministration in regard to the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB made by the resident about a neighbour. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, the landlord is ordered to apologise and pay the resident compensation of £350 to account for this. In addition, a recommendation has been included for the landlord to take steps to ensure that appropriate risk assessment takes place in response to future reports of ASB.

The resident’s concerns about the request from the landlord to remove her pool from the communal area.

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement a resident must not block, obstruct, create, or leave any hazard on any landing, corridor, stairwell, lift, refuse chute, access-way, fire escape, or any other communal area. While the tenancy agreement does not refer to a pool specifically, the pool was considered an obstruction to a communal area. Therefore, by placing a pool in the communal area, the resident had broken the terms of the tenancy agreement. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to remove the pool.
The landlord explained the reasons for the request to remove the pool in its initial complaint response on 27 September 2022. The landlord explained that residents were discouraged from leaving pools in communal areas due to health and safety reasons, including the risk of drowning and contaminated water. This explanation was reasonable because the landlord had duty to ensure that the communal garden was safe for all residents.
The tenancy agreement said that the landlord could take action if a resident did not comply with any of the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. It says that the action was dependent on the nature of the breach of tenancy. On 5 September 2022, the landlord provided the resident with a verbal notice of a breach to the tenancy agreement and provided a timescale of 7 days for the resident to rectify this. The action taken by the landlord was proportionate to the nature of the breach of tenancy.
In the initial compliant made on 6 September 2022, the resident said the pool had been in place for 2 years. The resident stated that staff of the landlord had seen the pool during this time and that other residents of the landlord had pools in place in their communal gardens. The resident added that she felt discriminated against due to the ASB she had reported at this time. Due to the timing of the request, it was understandable for the resident to feel that the landlord was pursuing the removal of her pool as an action arising from her reports of ASB. However, from the evidence examined, this Service is satisfied that the request to remove the pool was not connected to the ASB report and it was appropriate for the landlord to act upon the health and safety risk from the pool in the timeframe that it did.
The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the pool being in place for a period of time without concern in its stage two response on 1 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged that the pool may have been seen by landlord staff in the past. The landlord said that when reported, it looked to remove items causing obstructions in communal areas. It is possible that landlord had failed to consistently enforce this, given its acknowledgement that it may have seen the pool previously and failed to act. However, the landlord demonstrated that it had now put processes in place to improve communication on this matter. The landlord told the resident in its stage two response, that it will highlight that such items are not permitted, to potential new residents at the pre tenancy stage, so that residents are aware from the start of a tenancy.
It was noted that the resident confirmed with the landlord on 27 September 2022 that she had removed the pool as requested. On this date, the resident said the trampoline she had reported remained in the communal garden. The resident also raised this again in her complaint escalation. Following this, the landlord made further enquiries with residents of the communal garden to establish who the trampoline belonged to. It was reasonable for the landlord to investigate the ownership of the trampoline prior to arranging for the removal. The landlord confirmed in its stage two complaint response on 1 November 2022, that arrangements were in place to remove the trampoline.
In conclusion, the landlord acted within the terms of the tenancy agreement in its request for the resident to remove the pool from the communal garden. The landlord also demonstrated that it had put steps in place to improve communication with residents on items not permitted in communal areas. Therefore, this Service found no evidence of any maladministration by the landlord in respect of its request to the resident to remove the pool.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its request to the resident to remove her pool from the communal area.

Orders and recommendations.

Orders.

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation in relation to its overall failures in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation.

The landlord should review its processes to ensure that household vulnerabilities are considered as part of the ASB risk assessment process.