Brighton and Hove City Council (202322679)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322679

Brighton and Hove City Council

18 February 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:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a block.
The landlord’s records show that in November 2022 the resident reported that several neighbours were causing ASB. He alleged this included verbal abuse towards him and damage to his car. He reported some incidents to the police. He said he wanted to move out of the property and asked the landlord to help.
The resident’s main complaint was about one neighbour in particular referred to as ‘neighbour A’ in this report. In the months leading up to his complaint on 16 June 2023, he reported that she and her children were causing a noise nuisance. He said this included banging, shouting and screaming. He said she was also littering in the communal areas of the block. The landlord told him the neighbour had made counter allegations, such as accusing him of stealing her parcels. The resident denied these claims.
The landlord rang the resident the same day of his complaint to provide a verbal response to it. It’s records state the landlord outlined the steps it had taken following his ASB reports. The resident was dissatisfied with the initial response, including its verbal and informal form. He asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 26 July and provided further reasons for this on 7 August.
On 5 September 2023 the landlord sent a final written response to the resident’s complaint. It confirmed that the local authority’s Environmental Protection Team (EPT) had assessed that the noise coming from neighbour A’s property was “standard living noise”. As such it said it would not take action against neighbour A. However, it said it would keep exploring options to try and improve things for both households. It confirmed it had offered mediation but the resident had declined this.
As a way of resolving his complaint, the resident asked the landlord to help him to move and the landlord agreed it would. In December 2023 it confirmed he had moved into a new property. However the resident remains dissatisfied with outcome of the complaint and wants the landlord to apologise for its handling of the ASB issues and to offer compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the impact the ASB issues may have had on his wellbeing. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts. It will therefore not be considered in this report.
The resident complained to the Ombudsman about ASB he experienced over several years. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate a complaint which was not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
This Service has not seen evidence of the resident raising a complaint with the landlord about its handling of his ASB reports before mid-2023. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise and escalate complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. Because of that, and in accordance with paragraph 42.c., this investigation centres on the events leading up to the resident’s complaint he made in June 2023. Any reference to earlier periods is for context only.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour

It is evident that this situation has been difficult for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether it responded appropriately to his reports of ASB, including noise nuisance. This is a complex complaint where both the resident and his former neighbour have made allegations and counter allegations.
The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in the circumstances of the case.
The evidence shows the resident reported incidents (mainly alleged noise nuisance and littering) about neighbour A as far back as June 2022. The landlord said it had also received counter allegations. It said it had previously warned both parties about their tenancy obligations and about ensuring they did not breach their respective tenancy agreements. It said it had offered mediation at this time as a potential resolution, but the resident had declined this.
The resident reported ASB from 4 neighbours on 3 November 2022. On 9 November he updated the landlord by saying he had “sorted” most of the issues himself by discussing them with the neighbours.
The landlord has an ASB policy which says it expects “people to take responsibility for minor personal disputes with their neighbours”. However it says it will offer to help residents who are experiencing such issues. The policy says one of the ways it can support residents is by offering a mediation service. Therefore, the landlord’s initial actions were consistent with its policy.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise Complaints: Time to be Heard, in October 2022 suggests that landlords should carry out risk assessments to assess the severity of the noise reported. In this case the landlord demonstrated that it had adhered to this guidance. It risk-assessed the severity of the neighbour dispute on 24 June, 26 September and 16 October 2022. It found a “low risk” as it said there been no direct threats between the parties at that time, as such these actions to date were appropriate.
Between November 2022 and February 2023 the resident continued to report issues of ASB to the landlord, including an incident of alleged verbal abuse. The records show that the resident had agreed to partake in mediation services in late January. The landlord demonstrated it responded appropriately to this request, as it sent a referral form to the mediation service about the disputes concerning two of his neighbours on 8 February. This was again an appropriate course of action, in line with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord’s records show that the resident told the landlord he wanted to move. In December 2022 he confirmed to the landlord that he had registered on the mutual exchange website. He asked the landlord to support him with moving in February 2023. The landlord responded appropriately to this request, as on 9 March it completed a mutual exchange form to help him to move.
On 30 March 2023 the resident told the landlord that the mutual exchange had fallen through. He said that he was considering legal action against his neighbour regarding noise nuisance. He said that he had put a “warning of civil action” notice on the wall within the block and that neighbour A had subsequently called the police. The landlord responded on 6 April, it said it was sorry to hear about the continuing issues. It advised the resident to contact the EPT, and to reconsider mediation. It gave the details of those services. This was again relevant and proportionate information and support.
The resident made multiple further reports of ASB (mainly noise nuisance) during April and May 2023. The landlord did not respond directly to each individual report, but contacted him at the end of May to update him, asked him to log details in a diary, and reiterated its advice about contacting the EPT.
On 1 June 2023 the resident reported that neighbour A had threatened to hit him. The landlord demonstrated that it had appreciated the severity of the situation and agreed to meet with the resident, and the police, on 8 June. The landlord’s actions were consistent with its policy which says “we will work with partner agencies, such as the police, in seeking to resolve or improve the underlying issues”. The evidence shows that during this meeting counter allegations were raised, which the resident denied. There was no evidence of any further action being taken by the police.
In the months leading up to, and during the stages of the complaint, the resident said he intended to apply for an injunction against his neighbour regarding the alleged ASB. The landlord’s overall response to this was reasonable. It said that whilst it supported his right to consider legal action, he should “consider mediation funded by the local authority and EPT prior to taking action”. It recommended that he sought independent legal advice.
The evidence shows that the resident had begun reporting issues to the EPT in June 2023. At the end of July they agreed to write to neighbour A about the noise. They said they had analysed the diaries he had sent in and visited his property on 22 August. On 24 August they wrote to the resident to say that they were unable to investigate the resident’s reports as they had found the noise to be “everyday living noise”, which included noise from children. They gave the resident advice on his options, such as considering mediation, if the noise persisted. The evidence shows the EPT relayed this information to the landlord.
The landlord confirmed in its final complaint response that it had assessed the resident’s diaries and liaised with the EPT. It repeated their findings that the noise was “standard living noise”. As such it confirmed that it was unable to take action for this type of noise. It apologised for any upset it may have caused the resident by suggesting he may wish to move and confirmed that it was a “valid suggestion for anyone in your situation”. It offered to help the resident to make a housing application and gave advice on other housing options he had suggested.
The landlord’s overall response to the resident’s reports and his subsequent complaint was appropriate and reasonable. It demonstrated that it had carried out a risk assessment, offered mediation services, and advised him to complete diary sheets. It advised him to contact the EPT about the alleged noise nuisance who later confirmed the noise was “everyday living noise”. It used the information and evidence it had obtained to assess and make a decision about the resident’s reports, and then explained its decision to the resident. It showed it appreciated the distress and frustration the resident was experiencing and offered support and assistance with his request to move homes.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord said it provided a verbal response to the resident’s initial complaint on 16 June 2023. This was in line with its policy at that time which outlined “In some cases it may be appropriate and more efficient to phone or meet with the complainant to let them know what action has been taken in response to their complaint”.
Whilst the landlord may have been acting in line with its policy, its actions were against the guidance outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 2022. This version was relevant at the time of the resident’s complaint.
Section 5.8 of the Code says “Landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage one in clear, plain language: the complaint stage, the complaint definition, the decision on the complaint, the reasons for any decisions made, the details of any remedy offered to put things right, details of any outstanding actions and details of how to escalate the matter to stage two if the resident is not satisfied with the answer”.
In this case we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint as it did not respond appropriately in its first response. It did not confirm in writing what actions it had taken to resolve matters, and did not provide the resident with a clear explanation of how he could escalate his complaint. The landlord’s records show that the resident had become frustrated at the lack of a formal reply and he had spent time and trouble in chasing the landlord for its initial response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to;
1. Pay compensation of £100 to the resident for the service failure.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.