Bristol City Council (202401641)

Decision
Case ID	202401641
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Bristol City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	23 March 2026

 

Background

1. The resident complained about how the landlord handled her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from neighbours and her requests to move. She also said it had discriminated against her based on disability and race. She has vulnerabilities including physical disabilities and mental health needs, which the landlord is aware of.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB from neighbours.
   2. Requests to move.
   3. Reports of discrimination.
   4. Complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB from neighbours.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of requests to move.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of discrimination.
   4. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB from neighbours

4. The landlord failed to act in line with its ASB policy. It failed to apologise or offer any redress.

Requests to move

5. The landlord delayed passing the resident’s rehousing requests to the correct team. It failed to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience this likely caused.

Reports of discrimination

6. The landlord delayed addressing the resident’s concerns about discrimination. However, it offered to investigate further if evidence was provided.

The complaint

7. The landlord acknowledged delays in its handling of the complaint. However, it did not offer any redress or recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused.

 

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 provided by a senior member of staff 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 20 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 made up as follows: £300 for distress and inconvenience for its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from neighbours £50 for distress and inconvenience caused for the delays dealing with requests to move £50 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays dealing with the complaint 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 20 April 2026
3	ASB order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss her ongoing reports of ASB. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure it completes this order by the due date. If the landlord cannot engage with the resident, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to do so, no later than the due date. It must: complete a risk assessment, ensuring the resident’s vulnerabilities and the reported behaviour are fully considered if it identifies an investigation is required, develop and share an ASB action plan, setting out clear timescales, investigative steps, and communication arrangements if it identifies no investigation is required, it should explain its position clearly to the resident and the reasons why provide a copy of the risk assessment and action plan to us and the resident by the due date	No later than 20 April 2026

 

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord arrange refresher training for its staff that deal with ASB.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 February 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of reports of ASB, requests to move and discrimination. She said her neighbours were causing noise nuisance, and this was having a detrimental impact on her health. She said it was discriminating against her on the basis of disability and race.
5 March 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident and apologised for the delay. It said that most issues had been covered in a previous Ombudsman decision. It said it last investigated noise reports between November and December 2023. It reviewed her noise app recordings and concluded this was day to day household noise. It said the housing team would review her medical evidence and contact her about her request to move. It said it found no evidence of discrimination.
7 March 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with its stage 1 delay, and its response had failed to address her concerns.
6 June 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, apologising for the delay. It acknowledged that its actions had fallen below expected standards at times. It said this was due to staffing problems. It said it had reviewed its stage 1 response and had nothing further to add.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she felt the landlord had not resolved her complaint and the issues continued. She wanted a move to suitable accommodation or a refund of rent.

 

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	Reports of ASB from neighbours
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

8. We will not consider complaints about matters that have already been determined by us or by another Ombudsman. A joint decision on the resident’s reports of ASB was issued by both us and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman on 31 July 2023. As those matters have already been considered, and we cannot revisit them. We will therefore only assess new reports of ASB that have arisen since the previous joint decision.

What we did investigate

9. The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to this case which has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. This indicates a record keeping failure. Our investigation has relied on the available evidence.
10. The resident reported to the landlord ongoing noise and harassment from her neighbour in September and October 2023. She believed the behaviour was personal and racially motivated. She described shouting, banging, slamming doors, throwing heavy objects on the floors and walls. She said the police were aware. Following her reports, it suggested she speak with her neighbour or consider mediation. However, its response was over a month later. This was not in line with the 10 working day timescale set out in its ASB policy to respond to non emergency reports.
11. There was no evidence the landlord liaised with the police, despite the resident saying they were aware. It also failed to consider if mediation was appropriate, given her reports of discrimination. It is reasonable for a landlord to ask a resident to complete diary sheets, as they help establish the frequency and nature of noise. It issued diary sheets to record incidents, but it would have been helpful to explain their importance or how they would support its investigation.
12. In November 2023, the resident sent the landlord detailed diary sheets covering two weeks of noise disturbances. She also reported concerns about illegal activity, including drug dealing. There was no evidence that it reviewed or acted on these reports. It should have assessed any risk, checked internal records, and considered liaison with relevant agencies as per its ASB policy.
13. Almost five weeks later, the landlord said noise app recordings showed day to day household noise and advised it was closing the case. There was no evidence that it told her she could request a review of this decision as per its ASB policy. It could have referred her to environmental health or told her to continue keeping diary sheets to monitor the situation. This delay likely increased her frustration and made her feel that her concerns had not been taken seriously.
14. There were no further reports from the resident until 29 January 2024. She said the landlord had forced her to live with noise nuisance and racism for 550 days. She raised her complaint 2 days later. In its complaint response, it said the neighbour had moved. It told her to report new incidents to the tenancy enforcement team. Its response showed a lack of empathy and failed to acknowledge her distress. Given that it was aware of her vulnerabilities it could have considered referring her to its tenancy sustainment team for support.
15. The resident’s escalation request to the landlord said the issue was ongoing. Its response failed to offer any support, assess any risk, take action or provide reassurance. She told us that the issues continued, alleging it repeatedly placed new residents in the neighbouring property who caused further disruption. Its stage 2 response stated it had nothing further to add, again showing a lack of empathy.
16. In summary, the landlord delayed reviewing evidence and failed to act in line with its ASB policy. When concerns continued it focused on the neighbours departure. It did not consider her new reports or investigate them. It failed to provide any investigation, updates, or reassurance. We have therefore made a failure finding and orders for it to apologise, and take action to investigate any reports of ongoing noise. We have awarded £300 compensation for the identified failings which is in line with the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing which adversely affected a resident.

Complaint	Requests to move
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

17. We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease or a social housing tenancy. On this subject, the council was not acting in this capacity because it was carrying out its wider housing management function, rather than exercising responsibility connected to a tenancy. As such, we have no power to investigate the complaint about requests to move. The resident may wish to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. We can, however, consider how it responded to the resident’s request for rehousing.

What we did investigate

18. In September and October 2023, the resident told the landlord that she felt it had ignored her urgent medical need to move for years. She said the property was harming her physical and mental health and that she could not access treatment whilst living there. On 29 January 2024 she said it had ignored her daily and weekly emails about the issue. There is no evidence it responded. It should have acknowledged her concerns and directed her to its housing management team for support.
19. The landlord’s complaint responses informed the resident it had passed her requests to the housing management team and told her to deal with them directly. It advised it aimed to respond to emails within 10 working days and delays occurred due to staffing issues. It failed to acknowledge any distress or inconvenience its poor communication likely caused. As such We have made an order for it to apologise and award compensation of £50 to reflect this failure.

Complaint	Reports of discrimination
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

20. The resident raised concerns that the landlord had treated her differently due to her race and disabilities. She felt it prioritised white residents needs, exposed her to ASB, and prevented her from moving. Allegations of hate or discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. These matters therefore fall outside of our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns further using equalities legislation or speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance. We can, however, consider how it responded to her reports of discrimination.

What we did investigate

21. Between September and November 2023, the resident told the landlord 3 times that she felt it was discriminating against her due to race and disability. She said it purposely ignored her emails, forced her to endure ASB and left her in an unsuitable property without support. There was no evidence it responded to these concerns, which likely increased her distress and perception that it was ignoring her.
22. Best practice would have been to acknowledge her concerns, investigate and provide a clear response.
23. On 29 January 2024 the resident repeated her concerns to the landlord. She said it restricted her neighbours from using the downstairs of their property to avoid disturbing the “white residents below”. She said noise from upstairs only affected her. In its complaint responses it explained that it had reviewed all correspondence but found no evidence of discrimination. It invited her to provide evidence to support her allegation. There is no evidence that she did so. Although there were delays in addressing her concerns, it was reasonable that it offered to investigate further if she provided any evidence. We have, therefore, found no maladministration in its handling of this matter.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Service failure

24. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2022). Its timescales were not aligned with the Code at the time.
25. The landlord issued it stage 1 response 8 working days later than its policy of 15 working days. It did request an extension and responded within this time, however there was no provision for extensions in its policy at the time. Its stage 2 response was 47 days later than its 15 working days policy timescale.
26. The resident chased the landlord 14 times after the stage 2 response deadline passed. There was no evidence it responded. It should have given timely updates on the complaint’s progress.
27. Although the landlord’s responses addressed the residents complaints, it failed to reassure her that all issues had been fully investigated or explain what to do if issues continued. Its responses lacked empathy, which likely added to her feeling unheard. Complaint responses need to explain what action a landlord has taken, why it took those steps, and reference relevant policies. They also need to acknowledge the resident’s experience and show that the concerns have been understood and taken seriously.
28. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling delays but failed to offer any redress. We have made an order of £50 compensation to address the likely distress and inconvenience caused.

 

Learning

General learning

29. It is positive that the landlord’s complaints policy has been updated in line with the Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord’s lack of evidence made it challenging to assess the timeline of events. Accurate records must be kept and shared during investigations. It should view our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

31. Landlords must maintain clear communication with residents so they are aware of actions taken and the progression of queries or complaints.