Bristol City Council (202332077)

Decision
Case ID	202332077
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Bristol City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	11 February 2026

Background

The resident lives in a property with a garden. She told her landlord that the neighbour’s boundary fence had fallen, allowing brambles and overgrown bushes to spread into her back garden. She said the overgrowth was obstructing access and that she had been waiting around 18 months for the landlord to take action. The resident explained that the neighbour did not maintain their garden, causing intrusion of brambles into her space. She also said the persistent overgrowth kept her own fencing damp, leading to damage.

What the complaint is about

The landlords handling of:
1. reports of the condition of the neighbours garden
2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports of the condition of the neighbour’s garden.
There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of the reports of the condition of the neighbour’s garden

The landlord did not manage the case in a reasonable or timely way. From when the issues were first reported through to our recent conversation with the resident, the matter remained outstanding. The landlord failed to follow its policies, delayed its actions and did not keep the resident updated. It also did not provide redress for the distress and inconvenience its handling caused.

Complaint handling

The landlord failed to address every element of the resident’s complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 11 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 made up as follows:  £250 for the distress caused to the resident for its handling of the reports of the condition of the neighbour’s garden  £50 for its complaint handling This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 11 March 2026
3	Communication The landlord must create and share with the resident, a clear action plan that sets out: what steps it will take to address the neighbour’s garden issues what alternative options it could offer the resident, if any a named point of contact	No later than 11 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 September 2023	The resident raised a complaint. She said she first raised her concerns in November 2021 about the condition of her neighbour’s garden. She explained that: the shared fence was damaged and later destroyed brambles grew into her garden, causing harm to her dog and making the garden unusable she waited 6 months for a reply and only received a holding email her landlord visited in November 2022 and said it would speak to the neighbour, but she did not receive any update she sent more emails in January 2023 and May 2023 but did not receive any responses her landlord visited again in August 2023 the long delay made her relationship with her neighbour worse and she believed the landlord could have managed the situation sooner As a resolution, she wanted her landlord to: apologise for the lack of action commit to enforcing garden maintenance with her neighbour provide clear and regular communication going forward replace the fence panels between both gardens compensate her for the delay for its delay
21 September 2023	The landlord acknowledged the complaint and said it would provide its response by 12 October 2023.
12 October 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. In summary it said: it agreed it did not respond within its service standards and the delay was unacceptable. It apologised for this it would keep dealing with the tenancy issues and keep the resident updated its policy places residents in charge of boundary fencing. Because of this, it said it could not replace the fence, but it would remind the neighbour about their responsibilities
17 October 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said she accepted the apology about the delays but felt she was still facing the same poor communication. She questioned whether the landlord was taking any responsibility for the situation. She said she wanted her neighbour to keep his garden maintained so she could use her own. She also wanted the fence between the gardens replaced and said she was willing to pay half. She expected the neighbour to pay the rest, or the landlord to step in because of the poor service she had received. She asked for: better communication the fence panels replaced the tenancy agreement enforced so the neighbour maintains his garden
25 October 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation and said it would provide its stage 2 response by 14 November 2023.
22 November 2023	The landlord issued it stage 2 response. It said it had nothing further to add to its stage 1 response and explained that it had asked the neighbour to sign a ‘Good Neighbour Agreement’. It upheld the complaint due to delays and apologised. It said it would continue improving communication but could not replace the fence because residents are responsible for boundary fencing.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us. She said the problems with the neighbour’s fence and overgrown garden had a long history, and she told us she made a formal complaint to the landlord but nothing improved. Her representative said the resident kept reporting the issues, yet the landlord did not respond for long periods. She said the landlord also missed its own communication deadlines. They explained that the long delay affected the relationship between the resident and her neighbour, and that earlier action could have prevented this. The resident said she wanted an apology, clear communication, and firm action to make the neighbour maintain their garden. She also asked the landlord to replace the fence panels between the 2 gardens and to offer compensation for the poor service she experienced. The resident told us in a recent conversation that the neighbour’s garden is still overgrown and affecting her garden.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the reports of the condition of the neighbours garden
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident said she first reported the condition of her neighbour’s garden in November 2021. Under our Scheme, residents should raise complaints with their landlord within 12 months so the landlord has a fair chance to investigate. In this case, the landlord looked at reports from July 2022. We have therefore focused on events from July 2022 up to its final response in November 2023 including any commitments it made in that response.
The resident told the landlord that brambles overgrowing from her neighbour’s garden caused harm to her dog. Courts or insurance claims are best placed to decide liability cases. We have not investigated this further. Our role is to assess whether the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

What we investigated

The resident’s tenancy agreement says residents are responsible for their gardens. They must keep it tidy and look after hedges, bushes, trees, fences, gates and sheds within their boundary.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that environmental ASB covers behaviour that affects the local area and the places people live. This includes actions that harm or spoil the natural, built or social environment. Examples include untidy gardens. These issues may be dealt with by the Estates Management team or the Neighbourhood Enforcement Team.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy also says the resident is responsible for the garden and the fence.
On 8 July 2022 the resident reported that her boundary fence had fallen. She also said brambles from the neighbour’s garden were growing into her garden. The landlord opened a case and assigned it to its Housing team. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
On 26 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again. She said the neighbour’s garden had become very overgrown. She explained that she had already waited 18 months for an update on the neighbour’s damaged fence. She also said the neighbour continued to let brambles grow into her garden.
The landlord carried out a home visit on 11 November 2022, 4 months after the residents report. It is unclear what the landlord intended to do after the visit and the resident may have found this frustrating. While the landlord’s ASB policy does not have timeframes for visits or actions, it is unclear why it took the landlord so long to arrange a visit. In the circumstances the delay was unreasonable.
In June 2023 the landlord closed the case because it said no further concerns had been raised and the previous Housing Officer had already been involved. However, there is no evidence it told the resident about this decision or addressed the concerns she first reported in July 2022. This was not reasonable. The landlord’s ASB policy says environmental ASB, such as untidy gardens or rubbish, should be assessed and managed by its Estates Management or Neighbourhood Enforcement teams, yet there is no record that the landlord reviewed the resident’s concerns, took any action under this policy, or explained its decision. This meant its actions and inactions did not align with its ASB policy.
On 7 July 2023 the resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord and reported serious problems with the neighbour’s garden. The landlord replied on 11 July 2023 and said it would visit the neighbour on 20 July, which it did. While this showed some action, the landlord did not record any follow‑up steps, outcomes, or updates to the resident in line with its ASB policy.
On 10 August 2023 the landlord emailed the resident, apologised for the delays and said this was due to officer absence. By this point, more than 12 months had passed since the first report. However, the landlord did not set out what action it was going to take next, how it planned to assess the ongoing garden concerns, or what the resident could expect in terms of update.
The resident chased again on 18 September 2023. She reiterated issues with her neighbour’s garden and that the landlord had not followed up on its promises. She said the landlord did not give her a timely update and again failed to meet its commitment to improve communication. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this.
The resident complained on 21 September 2023 and said she had waited 18 months for meaningful action. On 24 September the landlord told her it would inspect the neighbour’s garden during an upcoming visit. Is in unclear if it updated the resident as there is no evidence it did.
In its stage 1 response on 12 October 2023, the landlord accepted it had failed to meet its service standards. It also said it would address any tenancy breaches and explained that some cases take longer or faces limits. These acknowledgements were appropriate and would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations. However, there was a missed opportunity for the landlord to provide this clarity much sooner.
The landlord also set out several commitments. It said it would keep the resident informed, explain any delays, offer alternative options, and manage expectations. These commitments were fair and reasonable.
However, the landlord did not explain how it would meet these commitments in practice. For example, it said it would keep the resident updated but did not give any timescale for when she could expect a reply.
The landlord also said it would offer alternative options, but it did not explain what those options might be. Without this detail, the commitment did not give the resident a clear understanding of what choices she had if delays continued.
In addition, the landlord said it would contact the resident at an “agreed frequency”. This could have been a reasonable approach, but it did not propose any specific frequency or ask the resident to agree one. As a result, it did not manage the resident’s expectations or provide a structure for future communication.
The landlord said it could not replace the 2 fence panels because the tenancy agreement and repairs policy make the resident responsible for her boundary fence. This was in line with its policies.
However, the resident said the fence became damaged because brambles from the neighbour’s garden grew into her garden. This meant the resident said the problem was linked to the neighbour’s lack of garden maintenance, rather than something within her control. It is unclear if the landlord responded to this.
In its stage 2 response on 22 November 2023, the landlord upheld the complaint and said it had asked the neighbour to sign a Good Neighbour Agreement.
The landlord did not explain what the agreement required the neighbour to do, what standards it expected them to meet, or how it would monitor or enforce the agreement. Without this detail, the resident could not understand how the agreement would improve the situation.
The landlord committed to actions in its complaint responses but did not follow through, and the issues remained unresolved for a long period, causing the resident ongoing time and trouble in pursuing the matter. It failed to follow its own policies, acknowledged faults but did not take meaningful learning, and allowed the case to continue without effective management.
The landlord delayed its actions, did not keep the resident updated, and closed the case without informing her or explaining how it intended to address the issues raised. It also failed to properly consider her concerns about the neighbour’s fence and did not show that it had recognised or addressed that aspect of the complaint. These failures led to avoidable distress, inconvenience, and some loss of enjoyment of the garden. While the landlord accepted some failings, it did not take sufficient steps to put things right or offer appropriate redress.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 for distress and inconveniences caused in its handling of the damp and mould reports. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where there has been failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident and it failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition (April 2022).
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. At the time of the complaint, its complaint policy says it would acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days and provide its stage 1 response within 15 working days. It says it would provide its stage 2 response within 15 working days of receiving the escalation request.
The resident submitted her complaint on 21 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and issued its stage 1 response on 12 October 2023, 15 working days later. In line with the Code, the landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge and 10 working days to answer the compliant (up to 15 working days). The landlord’s response was in line with its policy and the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 17 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 25 October 2023, 6 working days later and issued its stage 2 response on 22 November 2023, 20 working days after its acknowledgement. In line with the Code, the landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge and 20 working days to answer the compliant (up to 25 working days). The landlord’s acknowledgement was 1 day late, while its response was late this would not have caused any detriment or impacted the outcome
The landlord failed to address every element of the resident’s complaint, as it did not acknowledge that her dog was hurt. Even if it could not investigate this point, it should still have recognised the concern. By not doing, its response was not in line with the Code requirement to respond to every issue raised.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused in line with our remedy guidance.

Learning

The landlord identified during its internal complaints process that its communication had been poor, and it is positive that it recognised this failing. However, we would encourage the landlord to ensure it has effective systems in place to support case continuity, including arrangements for staff absence, changes in personnel, and leavers, so that residents are not disadvantaged by gaps in communication or case ownership

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records did not clearly show whether the issue was resolved, unresolved, or still pending, the landlord closed the case because time had passed, rather than because the problem was actually addressed. This left the resident without clarity, caused avoidable delays, and meant she had to keep chasing for information. Clear and accurate records would have helped the landlord understand the true position of the case, respond to the resident, and manage her expectations by setting out what was happening and what would happen next.

Communication

The landlord’s records show that its overall communication was poor, as it did not keep the resident regularly updated during the investigation. The landlord should be more proactive in providing updates while it makes enquiries with neighbours. It could improve its communication by setting clear timescales for updates, confirming expected response periods, and explaining any delays as soon as they arise.