Bristol City Council (202226249)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226249

Bristol City Council

29 September 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 the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance from the resident’s neighbour.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with her landlord that started on 27 September 2010. The resident has a tumour and suffers from long covid symptoms.
The resident states that she experienced antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance from her neighbour and her neighbour’s daughter for over 10 years. The resident claimed her neighbour allowed her daughter, who was a minor, to stay at the property unsupervised.
Between 26 April 2021 and 25 November 2022, the landlord received multiple reports of antisocial behaviour coming from the neighbour and the neighbour’s daughter. These reports mainly related to the neighbour’s daughter and visitors shouting, swearing, and having late-night parties.
Other reports disclosed the neighbour’s daughter and her visitors engaged in drunken and disorderly behaviour and loud sex, talking loudly in the street late at night, and, allowing her dog to bark for prolonged periods or allowing her dogs to deposit excrement or roam the streets.
Initially the resident wished to remain anonymous and did not want to make a formal complaint about the antisocial behaviour. The landlord made a referral for mediation. However, after an incident in December 2021 involving threatening behaviour and an allegation her neighbour’s daughter damaged her car, the resident requested her landlord evict her neighbour. The landlord asked the resident to record any incidents and report them to the police.
In April 2022, the resident reported the neighbour’s daughter threatening her and on 30 June 2022 the resident overheard the neighbour’s daughter making threats to her with a racial overtone.
The landlord did a joint visit with the police to the resident’s neighbour on 17 December 2021 resulting in a warning and again in April 2022.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour in February 2022 about the noise and told the resident about the noise app (software to record noise).
The landlord consistently asked the resident to record incidents using a noise and antisocial behaviour diary sheet during the period from 1 December 2021 to November 2022. It explained to the resident that the noise nuisance was dealt with by its neighbourhood enforcement team.
The landlord told the resident that it would issue the neighbour’s daughter with an acceptable behaviour contract. It also discussed issuing the neighbour with one too, or a parental control contract.
In March 2022, the landlord assessed the recordings made by the resident. It said that it was not a statutory nuisance, although the resident experienced issues with using the app.
Following a further incident on 30 June 2022 the police issued a warning to the neighbour and her daughter. The landlord agreed to get the resident’s neighbour to sign a parental control and pet owners’ agreement. The police confirmed on 19 July 2022 that there was insufficient evidence to take any further action but issued a caution and made a referral to the youth offending team. By July 2022, the neighbour’s daughter had signed an acceptable behaviour contract and her mother had signed a parental control contract.
On 25 October 2022, the resident complained to her landlord about how it had handled her reports and responded to her concerns over the safeguarding of the neighbour’s daughter.
On 1 December 2022, the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process. It stated that:
1. it was working with other agencies to remove the neighbour’s daughter from the neighbour’s property, but formal eviction was some way off.
2. having other services involved and the lack of evidence in the form of incident diaries had slowed progress. It partially upheld this part of the resident’s complaint over the landlord’s actions.
3. staff changes led to inconsistencies in the handling of her case, and it accepted the service could have been more productive and should have reflected on the number of police callouts.
4. there had been an overreliance on the neighbourhood enforcement team and a lack of coordination between teams to monitor the noise and police actions.
5. it is not primarily responsible for safeguarding young people, but it works closely with its partners to achieve this. It partially upheld this aspect of her complaint as it delayed action based on the expectation other agencies would act.
6. it could not evict a resident or threaten eviction but has a policy of encouraging residents to change their behaviour.
7. the actions it took were low level but since none of these proved effective injunctive action was required.
The resident asked her landlord to escalate her complaint on 20 December 2022. She expressed concern over the level of communication on the steps being taken by the landlord and its explanations for the lack of progress. The resident said she had provided details of incidents throughout and explained she felt misled by being told an eviction of the neighbour was an option. The resident mentioned she and her family had experienced physical and psychological damage.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 20 January 2023 and stated:
1. it could take some time and involvement from other agencies to secure an eviction and although it was acting it could not disclose what it was doing due to confidentiality.
2. it apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.
3. there had been some improvements for a short while but there were delays in the management of the antisocial behaviour due to staff changes and which caused the issue to be prolonged.
4. it does not have the power to evict and cannot comment on medical issues.
5. staff changes and a lack of ownership of the issues had caused delays.
6. it upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £50 as a goodwill gesture.
On 23 July 2023, the resident requested this service investigate as she was unhappy with the landlord’s actions over the 10 years.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident’s complaint relates to the conduct of her neighbour and her neighbour’s daughter over a 10-year period. This service is generally only able to consider complaints brought to a landlord by a resident within a reasonable period, this would normally be within six months of matters arising. This investigation therefore cannot fairly investigate claims going back a decade and will therefore consider issues from April 2021.

Policies

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy involves a sliding scale of responses and enforcement options when tackling antisocial behaviour. The landlord is required to investigate and gather evidence, including witness statements or diary sheets, on receiving reports of antisocial behaviour.
The landlord’s policy states it can refer to mediation, do home visits, issue both verbal and written warnings, and acceptable behaviour or parental control agreements. If these informal responses do not improve the antisocial behaviour the landlord can escalate to more formal tenancy action or apply for legal orders.
These formal options must be agreed at either a multi-agency meeting or case management conference. The policy also states the landlord will work with partners, including the police, to tackle antisocial behaviour.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour standard operating procedure is to contact any reporter of antisocial behaviour within 10 working days and to complete a risk assessment matrix.

The landlord’s response to antisocial behaviour

The landlord acted appropriately in opening an antisocial behaviour case on 30 April 2021 but took no further action.This was appropriate as the resident told the landlord that she did not wish to pursue “formal intervention” or go down the “antisocial behaviour route.”
The resident reported on 23 September 2021 that the neighbour’s daughter damaged her car with a trolley and allowed a dog to deposit excrement in her front garden. The evidence indicates that the resident admitted retaliating by playing loud music in response to being woken up by her neighbour’s dogs barking and did not wish the landlord to discuss the issue of the damaged car with her neighbour. The landlord agreed to do a referral for mediation which was appropriate given the resident’s wishes.
In November 2021, following a confrontation with her neighbour, the resident requested her landlord issue her neighbour with an “ASB order”. The landlord spoke to the neighbour and discussed her dogs barking continuously but the neighbour denied this. The landlord arranged to visit the neighbour in December 2021. It asked the resident to continue completing diary sheets, so all incidents were captured. This was a reasonable response and request considering the neighbour’s denial. The purpose of recording incidents was so that the landlord could assess the level, intensity and regularity of the behaviour complained of.
A further report was made on 1 December 2021 that the neighbour’s daughter shouted, insulted the resident, and damaged the resident’s car, and the resident provided video evidence. The landlord agreed to collect the noise diary, do a joint visit with the police to meet the resident’s neighbour, and review the case. The landlord’s actions were in line with its policy and therefore were reasonable.
At the joint meeting on 17 December 2021 the landlord expected to arrange for an acceptable behaviour contract to be signed. This was not possible due to the lack of engagement and counter allegations made. The landlord issued a verbal warning to the neighbour and made a referral for mediation. The landlord also asked the resident to report the noise to the neighbourhood enforcement team so it could monitor and assess it. As the neighbour’s daughter denied using insulting language directed at the resident or damaging the resident’s car, the landlord would have needed further corroboratory evidence to substantiate the resident’s allegations.
In response to the complaint on 5 February 2022, the landlord agreed to arrange a further joint visit with the police, update the neighbourhood enforcement team and chase the mediators. These actions showed a commitment from the landlord to act and were reasonable steps given the ongoing issues. The landlord also wrote to the resident’s neighbours and supported the resident gathering evidence using the noise app. However, the landlord placed too much reliance on evidence being gathered by this app. There is no evidence that it took witness statements or offered alternatives despite the resident informing the landlord in March 2022 that she was having difficulty using the app. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord contacted the police on 28 March 2022 for a further joint visit. This was to complete a good neighbourhood agreement. It planned for the neighbour to sign either a parental control or acceptable behaviour contract agreement and possibly arrange for the neighbour’s daughter to sign the latter. It was reasonable for the landlord to take this action and pursue informal options under its antisocial behaviour policy. This is because there was no evidence of a statutory nuisance and the landlord’s antisocial behaviour team had ruled out legal action based on the evidence.
The evidence indicates that on 5 May 2022, the landlord had seen video evidence that the neighbour’s daughter threatened the resident. At this point, the landlord was still waiting for the neighbour to sign both an acceptable behaviour contract and parental control contract. There is also evidence that the police had decided to issue a caution against the neighbour’s daughter. The landlord was working in partnership with the police to resolve the behaviour of the neighbour’s daughter. There is no evidence however, that the landlord considered the neighbour to be in breach of her tenancy by allowing her daughter to make threats which is a service failure.
Following a further incident on 30 June 2022 the landlord told the resident to continue to log incidents in her diary as these would be needed to support any formal action. The evidence suggests that this response made the resident feel that she was not being taken seriously, as she had already provided diary sheets and video recordings. It was reasonable for the landlord to request this as it evidenced a timeline of events. The resident accepted this and continued to engage in mediation with the neighbour.
The police concluded on 19 July 2022 that there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter and the resident had requested mediation it was appropriate for the landlord to continue with informal action. This is because mediation would be inconsistent with taking more formal action and the landlord was still encouraging the resident to gather evidence.
However, the landlord unreasonably delayed escalating the case from 20 September 2022 when it had taken the view the neighbour’s daughter had broken the antisocial behaviour contract. It would have been appropriate to have escalated the case sooner given that it had told the resident on 5 August 2022 and 26 August 2022 that if this contract was breached a referral for formal action would be made. The landlord accepted that it could have done more to progress the complaint in terms of evidence gathering, by considering the number of police calls out and coordinating a response between services. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 2 and accepted that there were avoidable delays and that it could have been more proactive.
The landlord offered the resident £50 as a goodwill gesture. The resident told her landlord that its inaction had caused physical and mental harm. Where claims are made that a person has been injured or a medical condition has worsened due to a landlord’s actions or inactions, the Ombudsman must consider the available documentary evidence. Often when this type of dispute arises, a medico-legal report is required to determine the issue, and this is produced by an independent medical expert. Without this type of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to say that the resident’s medical conditions were worsened by the landlord or that her family’s health was impacted.
This service has seen two occupational health reports however these are not medico-legal reports and do not show how the antisocial behaviour has impacted the resident’s medical conditions. The resident’s experiences of antisocial behaviour have caused her distress and inconvenience, nonetheless. However, this was the neighbour’s alleged behaviour and not the landlord’s.
It is clear, however, that the landlord accepts it should have done more. This is a finding that the Ombudsman agrees with. The level of compensation, however, is not fair to recognise the overall impact including anxiety and frustration caused to the resident. It is therefore appropriate to make an award for compensation to recognise this.
In summary, the Ombudsman has identified the following failures by the landlord:
1. placing too much reliance on the noise app and not offering alternatives or considering gathering evidence through witness statements or considering police records of callouts to the neighbour’s property.
2. not considering action for breach of tenancy after the incident on 5 May 2022.
3. delaying escalating the case from 20 September 2022 after it was aware that there had been a breach of the acceptable behaviour contract by the neighbour’s daughter.

The landlord’s communication with the resident

This service has seen evidence that the landlord took reasonable steps to update and communicate with the resident. The landlord informed the resident on 28 March 2022 that its antisocial behaviour team did not believe it would be appropriate to take court action against her neighbour. The landlord also explained what steps it had taken, referring to making a referral to a multi-agency meeting and arranging for an acceptable behaviour contract and parental control contract to be issued.
The landlord also contacted the resident on 22 July 2022 and updated her that it had arranged mediation and that the police had interviewed the neighbour’s daughter. It also informed the resident that the neighbour’s daughter had been issued with an acceptable behaviour contract and provided advice and another update to the resident on 28 August 2022. The landlord also informed the resident on 25 November 2022 that it was working with its partners and would be looking to act more formally.
The resident suggested that the landlord evict her neighbour. She was unhappy that this was not achieved at the point of complaint. The evidence shows that the landlord informed the resident that it needed substantial evidence to support any formal action and encouraged her to complete diary sheets. There is also evidence that the landlord communicated with social services, the police, and support workers but was unable to disclose details of this due to confidentiality.
The landlord acknowledged the impact the situation was having on the resident in its communications. It signposted the resident to a support service for victims of hate crime and an advocacy support service. The landlord also discussed a local agreed transfer and suggested the resident register on the housing register so she could move. These were all steps consistent with acknowledging the impact. However, the level of compensation offered did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident was unhappy that she had not been provided with more detailed explanations of the actions the landlord was taking and the reason why formal eviction action was still so far off. The evidence shows that the landlord provided as much information as it could, considering there were understandable sensitivities around the neighbour’s daughter who was a vulnerable minor.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. pay the resident the sum of £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the identified failures.
2. review the evidence provided by the resident and refer to its legal team or to solicitors to take full advice on the options open to the landlord. The landlord must confirm the outcome of this advice to the resident and this service within 28 days of the date of this determination.