Bristol City Council (202447805)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447805

Bristol City Council

24 September 2025

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 the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom property and has a secure tenancy with the landlord (a local council). The landlord had recorded vulnerabilities for the resident listed as mental distress. The resident has told us that the issues with ASB have impacted her mental health.
On 28 February 2024 the resident reported an ASB incident with her neighbour. Several further reports were made before the resident raised a formal complaint on 1 July 2024. The resident complained that since the new staff member had taken over her case in February 2024, she was made to feel unsupported, was not believed and was misinformed on procedures. She was unhappy with how the staff member had handled the ASB reports. A stage 1 complaint response was sent on 4 July 2024, it was not clear from this response if the complaint was upheld or not.
The resident escalated her complaint on 7 August 2024. Within her escalation she said that the staff member had:
1. arranged meetings but failed to show up
2. called her but was not acknowledging the level of impact the ASB was having
3. called to rearrange a meeting, but failed to follow through with actions
4. not completed an action plan for the ASB or acknowledged the individual reports made
5. ignored, disregarded or minimised the ASB reports made
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 13 September 2024, it said:
1. there were occasions where contact with the resident’s Housing Officer were not as the landlord would expect
2. the good neighbour agreement (GNA) sent in July 2024 had the neighbour’s details on, instead of the resident’s
3. it would consider allocating the resident an alternate Housing Officer, even if this was on a temporary basis, to lead on certain elements of the ASB process
4. the resident’s preference was not to meet at her property, and it would note future meetings should be held at the council’s building
5. its Neighbourhood Enforcement Team (NET) did not have an open case and could not install noise equipment without evidence from the resident – it provided a link to supply evidence such as noise diaries
6. a meeting was due to take place on 19 September 2024 for the resident to sign a GNA and asks that she consider signing this – if the neighbour then breaches terms of GNA this could be used in enforcement action
7. the resident should continue reporting incidents to ensure evidence is gathered to support further action
Following the stage 2 complaint response, the meeting on 19 September 2024 did not take place. The landlord and resident attempted to arrange further meetings for 18 October 2024 and 5 and 19 December 2024. Further communication between the resident and the landlord took place between December 2024 and March 2025.
The resident referred her case to us on 25 May 2025. The resident has told us the ASB issue is ongoing, and she has not received further contact from the landlord to assist since March 2025. The resident would like the landlord to take action and support her with the ASB.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We note the resident has reported ASB for a long time. However, our investigation has mainly looked at the landlord’s actions from February 2024 onwards. This is because the resident’s formal complaint was about reports from this date.
We decided it was fair to look at the landlord’s actions up to 19 March 2025. We did this because part of the complaint was about missed meeting relating to ASB. The landlord said it would meet with the resident in its stage 2 complaint response, but these meetings continued to be an issue. We are looking at the period up to 19 March 2025 as this was the last time significant contact was made about meetings.

Handling of ASB reports

On 22 February 2024 the resident requested a call from her landlord. The landlord called the resident on 28 February 2024 and recorded an ASB incident regarding the resident’s neighbour. This included shouting, acting aggressively, and using explicit language. This was reasonable as the contact was made within the landlord’s ASB policy timescales of a 10-working day response time.
Between 28 February and 3 April 2024 communication between the resident and landlord continued. The resident contacted the landlord twice to update about the ongoing ASB, the landlord responded on both occasions within the relevant policy timescales.
On 25 March 2024 the landlord also contacted the police and requested that an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC) be considered alongside a GNA. It also asked the resident on 3 April 2024 to contact its NET team to record a case about noise from the neighbour. These actions were positive and showed that the landlord was actively trying to manage the resident’s ASB case.
However, the landlord did not conduct a risk assessment or provide an action plan to the resident for how it would deal with the reported ASB. These are 2 key steps in its ASB policy that the landlord did not follow. By failing to complete either of these actions, it could not fully consider the resident’s vulnerabilities or ‘risk factors’ when deciding what action to take. It also meant that the resident was unaware of the steps the landlord would take to try and resolve the ASB. This was unreasonable and caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
On 16 April 2024 the landlord arranged for a meeting with the resident to sign a GNA. It advised that the meeting would take place with the police and the landlord present and would be on 26 April 2024 between 11:30am and 12pm.
The evidence shows that despite the resident being available for the meeting the landlord contacted her at around 11:45am on 26 April 2024 to cancel the meeting. This was because the police were unavailable to attend. The failure of the landlord to update the resident promptly was unreasonable and caused the resident further inconvenience.
On 16 May 2024 the resident reported further ASB concerns relating to the neighbours dog. The landlord responded on 21 May 2024, and it was agreed that the GNA would be sent to the resident for her to review before signing. However, the resident had to chase the landlord twice for the GNA on 22 and 23 May 2024. Following this, the landlord sent a GNA to the resident with the neighbour’s details on the GNA instead of the resident’s. The resident did not receive the correct GNA until police provided this to her on 22 June 2024.
This lack of care from the landlord was unreasonable. These actions did not align with the landlord’s ASB policy to take a ‘victim centred approach’. It increased the resident’s distress and inconvenience further.
On 28 June 2024 the resident reported a further incident of ASB regarding the neighbour’s dog and the aggressive behaviour of the neighbour toward a guest. A case note from 1 July 2024 shows that the landlord received a recording of the incident and the resident provided a police incident reference number. The resident also told the landlord that the neighbour had signed a GNA on 6 June 2024, and that the incident from 28 June 2024 was a clear breach of this.
The landlord called the resident on 10 July 2024. The resident has provided us with a recording of this conversation. On the call the landlord’s attitude toward the resident was unsympathetic and inappropriate. For example, the landlord said to the resident that the police attempted to sign the GNA with the resident twice – when the resident disagreed the landlord said “Oh, so the police are lying to me”.
A further example during the call was where the resident said that she was not receiving contact from the landlord to update her on the ASB incidents. The landlord responded by stating that it did not need to need to provide details of every conversation with the neighbour. When the resident said she just wanted to know if she was doing anything wrong, the landlord replied, “So what would you like me to do, just sit inside the front garden and watch you guys all day?”
While we can understand that ASB can be complex and challenging to manage, it is important for the landlord to remain professional in any communication with resident’s. The evidence shows that the landlord treated the resident in a heavy handed and inappropriate manner. This failed to align with its victim centred approach set out in its ASB policy.
During the call a meeting was agreed for 11am on 16 July 2024 to sign the GNA. However, the landlord again failed to turn up at this meeting and it was left for the resident to contact the landlord to find out the reason why. This failure to turn up to the meeting or update the resident did not follow its ASB policy which says it would keep resident’s informed. The failures highlighted above caused the resident some significant distress and inconvenience at what was already a distressing time.
A voicemail was left for the resident on 16 July 2024 which advised that the meeting to sign the GNA would be rearranged for 19 July 2024. It was agreed that the resident would be contacted on 17 July with an update. However, no call on 17 July 2024 was made. This again highlighted the poor management of the resident’s ASB case and continued to increase the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident.
The resident called to chase the landlord on 18 July 2024 and advised that she would be unable to make any meeting on the 19 July 2024 as it was too late for her to make travel arrangements or arrange for her Victim Support Advocate to attend with her. Despite this, the landlord called her on 18 July and asked for a meeting on 19 July at 2pm. This further highlights a failure to manage the ASB case proactively and caused further distress to the resident.
We have listened to the call recording on 18 July 2024 which has been provided by the resident. This again highlighted the unsympathetic and heavy-handed approach from the landlord. For example, when the resident challenged the landlord needing the police to be present at the signing of the GNA the landlord said, “if you know my job title and you know the role better than me, I do need the police there”. A further example from the call was the landlord saying, “I am trying, but this isn’t my only case I’m also dealing with 143 other cases okay”.
This type of heavy-handed unsympathetic approach led to the resident feeling unsupported by the landlord. It is also important to note that there is no evidence of any risk assessment or action plan being provided despite further ASB reports. This is not in line with its ASB policy which says it will review action plans and risk assessments regularly and highlights the importance of doing this. These failures meant the resident did not know what she was required to do to assist the landlord in dealing with the ASB or the reasons why. It also meant that the communication between the resident and landlord became difficult as there were no clear actions set out for either party to take. This continued to increase the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident.
On the call the landlord said that it would review the evidence and information provided by the resident in relation to the ASB report made on 28 June 2024 as soon as the call ended. But there is no evidence to show that the landlord did this and no evidence to show the landlord completed any actions following the call. This was unreasonable and failed to follow its ASB policy.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 13 September 2024 it set out the failings in communication and the errors in providing documents with correct details. It apologised for any inconvenience caused and confirmed that a meeting was due on 19 September 2024 to sign the GNA. It said that by signing the GNA it would allow the landlord to use any breaches to build evidence to take action against the neighbour.
While the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did provide details about the next step in the ASB case (the 19 September 2024 meeting), it did not acknowledge the landlord’s failure to follow its own ASB policy. It did not address the resident’s escalation point that she had received no action plan since the ASB report in February 2024. The landlord’s failure to recognise it had failed to follow its ASB procedure showed a lack of learning in the case. It also meant that similar mistakes repeated themselves following the stage 2 complaint response.
Additionally, there is no evidence to show that the landlord explained the need for the resident to sign a GNA. The resident questioned whether it was proportionate for her to sign the GNA in her formal complaint to the landlord on 1 July 2024. The reason was not explained to her either by the staff member, nor in its stage 1 complaint response. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it needed the resident to sign the GNA to take action against the neighbour. However, it did not make clear to the resident why she needed to sign the GNA for the landlord to act with the neighbour.
Its ASB policy says that it will use ‘interventions’ such as neighbourhood agreements to be supportive. The action should be used to help support a ‘complainant’ or ‘perpetrator’ by providing clear boundaries that will prevent them from putting their tenancy at risk. As the landlord failed to explain why the resident needed to sign a GNA, the resident questioned the proportionality of this approach with her. Considering the landlord’s ASB policy highlights how it takes a victim centred, evidence-based approach the failure to clearly explain why the resident was required to sign a GNA was unreasonable. This caused significant distress and inconvenience for the resident.
The evidence shows the landlord missed the meeting scheduled on 19 September 2024, it was then left to the resident to chase the landlord 5 times before receiving a call on 15 October 2024 to arrange a new meeting for 18 October 2024.
This was a repeated failure from the landlord following the stage 2 complaint response. This significantly increased the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident. The failure of the landlord to take a victim centred approach, create an action plan or be proactive in arranging a meeting was unreasonable. This did not align with its own ASB policy.
The resident’s advocate sent an email to the landlord following the 15 October 2024 call to confirm that they were available on 18 October 2024 for a meeting anytime between 1pm and 4pm. Despite this, the landlord suggested a meeting for 10am. This failure to recognise the resident’s need for an advocate and suggest a time outside of their availability further highlighted poor case management. This created more inconvenience for the resident.
On 27 November 2024 the resident received communication from an MP caseworker who she had contacted to assist with the ASB issues. The MP caseworker said that the landlord had requested a meeting on either 5 or 19 December 2024. The resident confirmed to the MP caseworker that once a date and time was confirmed she would be available.
On 3 December 2024 the resident contacted the landlord as she had yet to receive a date or time for the meeting. She chased again on 10 December 2024, but did not receive a response from the landlord, so no meeting went ahead. This again highlighted the lack of a clear action plan and poor communication with the resident. This failure to follow its ASB policy continued to cause the resident distress and inconvenience.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 January 2025 to say that she still had not had a meeting with the landlord and asked when this would be arranged. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this request. The resident reported a new ASB incident with photos and a crime reference number on 20 February 2025. The resident chased for a response to this on 12 March 2025. These examples further highlight the landlord’s failure to follow its ASB policy, and the continued distress and inconvenience felt by the resident.
When looking at the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports from February 2024, there are some key issues which are:
1. its failure to apply its own ASB policy, which included:
  1. the failure to complete a risk assessment
  2. the failure to complete an action plan
  3. the failure to communicate effectively with the resident
  4. the failure to manage expectations
  5. the failure to take a victim led approach
2. its treatment of the resident, which included:
  1. dealing with her in an unsympathetic or inappropriate manner
  2. treating her in a heavy-handed way
This is highlighted by the fact that the landlord insisted on the resident signing a GNA before it could take any further action with the neighbour. There is a lack of evidence to show what action, if any, it took with the neighbour after they signed their own good neighbour agreement in June 2024. After this date the resident reported several further instances of ASB, including reports made to the police. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to show it was using its ASB policy to incrementally increase the action using a victim led, evidence-based approach.
The failings above are made worse as there was no recognition of the impact the situation was having on the resident. The resident told the landlord several times that she was unable to stay at her home as she was frightened or worried about what could happen with the neighbour. She explained that she was stopping at her friends overnight and was sending other people to collect her post. The failure to take a victim centred approach or follow its ASB policy meant that the actions the landlord decided to take, and the support it offered the resident was never reviewed. There were multiple missed opportunities to provide the resident reassurance that it understood the resident’s circumstances and confirm what actions it would take or support it could offer.
When considering all the circumstances of the case this amounts to severe maladministration. This is because there was a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.
When looking at a remedy for this case the landlord’s failures lasted a long time, were not acknowledged or addressed during its complaint handling, and the issues are ongoing. Where this is the case our remedies guidance suggests a payment of over £1,000 is proportionate. Therefore, we consider a payment of £1,500 is fair. This is broken down as:
1. £1,000 for the impact of the landlord’s failure to follow its policies
2. £500 for treating the resident in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic or inappropriate manner – and the impact this caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. arrange a call from its senior leader responsible for housing to verbally apologise to the resident for the failings found in this investigation
2. provide evidence to us to show it has arranged the call, and that a senior leader has spoken to the resident
3. pay compensation of £1,500 to the resident and provide evidence of payment to our Service – the compensation is broken down as:
  1. £1,000 for the impact of the landlord’s failure to follow its policies
  2. £500 for treating the resident in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic or inappropriate manner – and the impact this caused
4. arrange to meet the resident at a council building at a time that is convenient for the resident to discuss the ongoing ASB – and write our Service and the resident to confirm the date, time and place of the meeting
5. complete a risk assessment as set out in its ASB policy and provide a copy of this to our Service
6. complete an action plan which sets out:
  1. a point of contact for the resident
  2. a communication plan that sets out how often the landlord will update the resident
  3. what action the resident needs to take (with support of the landlord) to gather evidence and how this should be logged and provided
  4. what actions the landlord will take when considering both the history of ASB reports since 2021 and the current ASB issues faced by the resident
  5. a suitable senior person to review the ASB case, and when and how often the ASB case will be reviewed
  6. the timescales for any action to be completed
7. The landlord is ordered to send a copy of the action plan in writing to both the resident and our Service
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to review its offer of training for staff that handle ASB cases. This should focus on call handling techniques, the importance of using a victim led approach and following its own ASB policy. If it has not already, the landlord may want to listen to the calls with the resident dated 10 and 18 July 2024, 15 October 2024 and 19 March 2025 which show examples of call handling that could inform future training.