Bristol City Council (202100119)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100119

Bristol City Council

26 April 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 the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder and lives in a one bedroom ground floor property. The lease is dated 19 April 2021. The landlord has no vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its system.
The resident had a previous complaint regarding anti-social behaviour caused by her neighbour with the Housing Ombudsman, which was assessed on 27 November 2020. Therefore, this complaint will cover the reports of anti-social behaviour after this date.
The landlord has provided a copy if its anti-social behaviour policy which states that for reports of anti-social behaviour which pose an immediate risk, it would respond within two days and would complete an action plan within a further two days. Where reports of anti-social behaviour pose no immediate risk then it would have 10 days to respond and another 10 days to create an action plan.
The alleged anti-social behaviour was allegedly committed by the resident’s neighbour and therefore they will be called the ‘neighbour’ in this report.

Summary of events

On 30 December 2020, the resident’s neighbour reported to the landlord that the resident was having bonfires, but the case was closed as there was insufficient evidence.
On 18 March 2021, the resident reported that her neighbour was having bonfires in their garden. The neighbour also raised counter allegations. The landlord contacted the resident to give advice on bonfire guidelines and a letter was sent to the neighbour with the guidelines, but no action was taken as bonfires were permitted. The landlord tried to offer mediation as a way to resolve the dispute.
On 7 June 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour started abusing her and her husband whilst they were working in their garden. The resident said the neighbour threatened to set their dog on her. The resident also wanted a CCTV camera in the communal hall removed as the resident said this faced her door.
On 16 June 2021, the landlord sent a letter to the resident with an action plan and arranged a home visit to the resident with the Housing Officer and the Police to discuss the matter further. A visit to the neighbour’s home had to be rearranged as the neighbour was ill. The landlord said that the Police advised that, as there were no witnesses, they were unable to take any further action. The Police and the Housing Officer conducted door knocking but no one witnessed the incident.
Between 17–20 June 2021, the resident’s neighbour sent the landlord several videos alleging the resident made rude hand gestures towards her. On 24 June 2021, the neighbour said that the resident was causing anti-social behaviour and constantly bullying and intimidating them and their partner.
On 30 June 2021, the Police visited both the resident and the neighbour and confirmed no further action was to be taken. The landlord also confirmed that there was no further action with regards to the placement of the neighbour’s CCTV. On 7 July 2021, an anti-social behaviour case conference was held with Safer Bristol, where it was concluded that mediation would be appropriate to resolve the issues.
On 15 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord about the incident from 7 June 2021, although no new reports of anti-social behaviour had occurred. As the issue was a neighbour dispute, the landlord felt that the issue could be resolved by mediation and sent a letter advising this to both parties.
On 26 September 2021, there were reports from the resident that her neighbour was verbally abusive whilst she was hoovering the communal area. The resident also stated that her husband was verbally abused by the neighbour in the street. Furthermore, the resident reported that her neighbour regularly slammed the front door and stamped up the stairs. On 29 September 2021, the neighbour raised counter allegations and said that the resident was hoovering the communal areas at 10pm and making lots of noise which caused disturbance. On 29 September 2021, the landlord sent a letter to both parties explaining that mediation could be a helpful way to resolve the issues.
On 5 October 2021, a referral for mediation was made as the resident agreed to do this after speaking to the Housing Officer. On 26 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that her neighbours were still slamming the main front door and their own front door before 9am. The resident also supplied video footage of the neighbour dropping litter in her front garden and alleged verbal abuse at the resident from a window.
On 2 November 2021, the landlord sent an email to the resident with a copy of the letter offering mediation, but the resident declined the offer when contacted by the mediation company.
On 30 November 2021, the resident reported issues of noise from her neighbour and on 7 December 2021, the landlord requested measures to alleviate the noise such as a door softener. On 17 December 2021, the notes show that the resident had confirmed the noise from the door being slammed had stopped.
On 22 December 2021, the resident reported issues with noise from her neighbour and their dog barking. The resident also said that she was verbally abused by her neighbour and her neighbour sometimes played loud music. On 11 January 2022, the resident sent the landlord noise sheets of her neighbour’s dog barking and the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour the same day. On 21 January 2022, the neighbour emailed the landlord to say that their dog only barks now and again and that the resident only complained because she hates them.
On 26 January 2022, the resident reported that her neighbour had been verbally abusive to workmen at her property. On 27 January 2022, the resident provided a crime reference number for the alleged abuse. On 8 February 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the neighbour’s dog barks every 5 to 15 minutes. On 9 February 2022, the landlord reached out to the resident and was advised that the Police were still investigating and agreed to link its investigation with the Police’s.
On 10 February 2022, the landlord assessed the situation and said that mediation was not appropriate. The landlord called the resident to discuss the anti-social behaviour. On 11 February 2022, the resident sent the landlord an audio recording which included the sound of a dog barking and an altercation, during which verbal abuse was heard. The resident identified the voice as her neighbour’s. On the same date, the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge receipt of the audio files and requested to speak on the telephone.
On 18 February 2022, the landlord sent the resident instructions on how to download and use a noise app to obtain further evidence. On 23 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to ask why she had to use an app and obtain further evidence for something to be done. The landlord responded on the same date to say that physical evidence was required before it could determine the dog barking a ‘nuisance’ rather than just ‘annoying’. The notes showed that this particular issue was closed on 6 April 2022 as there were no further reports of the dog barking.
On 21 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord regarding anti-social behaviour, including further recordings of the neighbour placing rubbish in her garden. The landlord emailed the resident to say that the Housing Officer was changing and the case would be handed over to the new officer who would speak to the Police. The landlord’s notes show that the Police were considering action and would update the landlord on the outcome.
On 23 March 2022, the resident reported that the neighbour’s partner had assaulted her husband and provided a crime reference number. On 1 April 2022, the new Housing Officer emailed the Police to request information about the alleged assault. On the same date, the landlord called the resident and the resident commented that the Police were still investigating. On 6 April 2022, the landlord received an email from the Police confirming that the new incident was under investigation and therefore the Police were not able to give any information until the incident had been fully assessed and all the parties interviewed.
On 8 April 2022, the resident reported that her neighbour had ripped her net curtain in the communal hallway and verbally abused her. On 11 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord regarding the alleged new issues. On 25 April 2022, the landlord had a telephone conversation with the resident and the resident agreed to send in video footage of the incident. It was confirmed that the Police investigation was still ongoing with regards to the abuse captured on CCTV.
On 29 April 2022, the resident sent the landlord two audio files which she said had also been handed into the Police. The landlord listened to the audio clips and the landlord said that it was a Police led investigation/public order offence. In May 2022, there was correspondence from the resident regarding a ripped net curtain. On 16 May 2022, the landlord advised the resident to report any criminal damage to the Police.
On 25 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say that her neighbour had been cautioned for abuse. On the same date, the landlord received a counter complaint from the neighbour regarding the net curtain and alleged other issues.
On 26 May 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it would be liaising with the Police with regards to the caution. On 31 May 2022, the landlord said that the Police requested the resident removed the net curtain to resolve the situation, as the net curtain was in a communal area. On 1 June 2022, the Police investigating officer confirmed to the landlord that the neighbour had a six-month conditional caution and was not allowed to harass or abuse the resident. The Police had reports from the resident that the neighbour breached the caution and said they would assess the situation.
The landlord said that a Good Neighbour Agreement was not appropriate as the neighbour already had a formal measure in place, but it said it would consider anti-social behaviour measures if the neighbour breached the caution.
On 7 June 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident and asked her to remove the net curtain and said it would only take further action if the Police advised it that the caution had been breached.
On 10 June 2022, the resident alleged further anti-social behaviour from her neighbour and this involved sweeping dirt on to her front door. The notes say the resident also informed the Police. Throughout June 2022, the resident provided photos and communicated with the landlord regarding her neighbour putting dirt on her mat. The resident provided CCTV footage of her neighbour sweeping the hallway and swearing. On 15 June 2022, the landlord said that the issues involving the resident and her neighbour in regards to the net curtain and sweeping the communal area could be resolved by mediation. The landlord called the resident to advise what action was available.
On 17 June 2022, the resident made a stage one complaint regarding her dissatisfaction of the landlord’s handling of her reports of anti-social behaviour about her neighbour and that it had not considered evidence in the form of videos and recordings.
On 22 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to report noise issues. On 27 June 2022, the landlord contacted the resident by telephone to discuss the issue. On the same date, the landlord contacted the resident’s neighbours regarding the reports. The neighbour also asked to see footage of her sweeping dirt.
On 5 July 2022, the landlord responded at stage one and did not uphold the complaint. The response said the following:
1. That the resident had made many complaints and her neighbour had made counter allegations which had been investigated and there had been input from the Police and anti-social behaviour team.
2. The landlord had followed all its policies and procedures and investigated each report made. An anti-social behaviour case conference was held on 7 July 2021 with Safer Bristol, where it was concluded that mediation would be appropriate. The landlord said that any issues of criminal damage should be reported to the Police.
3. With regards to providing a previous estate manager with video footage, the resident had not provided the name of the person. The landlord said that recent video footage had been viewed as part of its investigations. The landlord said that it would not look at historical issues.
On 13 July 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to stage two as she was unhappy that the landlord had not considered video recording evidence and said that mediation would not have been successful.
On 15 July 2022, the landlord said that the issues regarding the net curtain and dirt in the communal area were assessed as resolvable by mediation.
On 22 July 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour had abused workmen at her address. On 4 August 2022, the landlord confirmed with the Police that the resident had been told that no action could be taken as there was no complaint made by the workmen. The landlord also called the resident to clarify its position and again said that mediation could resolve the issue. There were no further reports of noise to be investigated.
On 2 September 2022, the landlord provided its stage two response and did not uphold the complaint. The response said the following:
1. That the issues with the resident’s neighbour were long standing and complex and had been reviewed at a muti-agency case conference. The landlord confirmed that the offer of mediation was still available and where issues could be resolved by mediation then the landlord would not respond further.
2. In terms of the complaint about the Housing Officer refusing to review evidence, the landlord said it had reviewed the video footage and consistently considered the evidence the resident provided. The landlord said it was unable to investigate historical issues.
3. The landlord confirmed that any issues regarding drug use or criminal damage should be considered by the Police. It said that any action it takes must be appropriate and proportionate to the issues, and it had fully considered the evidence.
On 23 September 2022, one of the neighbours moved out and the other asked for all counter claims to be closed. There were no further reports of anti-social behaviour from either party.

Assessment and findings

Not every instance of nuisance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has two main duties when anti-social behaviour is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the anti-social behaviour. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
Additionally, matters where there is a history of anti-social behaviour over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the anti-social behaviour policy ensures that a landlord is acting fairly, its response is proportionate to the issues being raised, and that its approach is consistent.
The resident reported her neighbour’s having bonfires in March 2021 and the neighbour also made a counter argument that the resident was also doing this. The landlord wrote to both parties to give advice on bonfire guidelines but did not take any action as bonfires were permitted. The landlord also offered mediation to resolve the dispute. The landlord therefor took reasonable steps to address the issue.
On 7 June 2021, the resident said that her neighbour abused her and her husband whilst they were working in their garden and threatened to set their dog on them. The resident also wanted some CCTV cameras removed which she felt invaded her privacy. On 16 June 2021, the landlord communicated its intentions in an action plan letter it sent to the resident and visited the resident and attempted to visit the neighbour with the Police. The visit was within the timeframe set out in the landlord’s policy and the Police knocked on other neighbour’s doors for witnesses of the incident. As there were no witnesses, the Police advised the landlord that no further action could be taken and the case was closed. By involving the Police and trying to get witnesses, the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances. The landlord also looked into the CCTV issue, but did not feel the need to take any action. Again, this was a reasonable action as the landlord demonstrated it investigated the resident’s reports.
On 26 September 2021, the resident reported that her neighbour had been abusive to her whilst she was hoovering a communal area. The resident also stated her husband was verbally abused by the neighbour and the neighbour slammed the front door. On 29 September 2021, the neighbour raised a counter allegation that the resident was hoovering at 10pm and was making a lot of noise which disturbed her. On the same date, the landlord sent a letter to both parties stating that mediation could resolve the dispute. Given the level of the anti-social behaviour at this point, the offer of mediation from the landlord was a fair attempt to resolve the issue, especially as the neighbour had also complained.
On 26 October 2021, the resident reported that her neighbour was slamming the main door and her own front door and the resident provided video footage of the neighbour dropping a piece of litter in her front garden. On 2 November 2021, the landlord again sent the resident a copy of the letter offering mediation. The landlord responded within its timescales and the offer of mediation was reasonable.
On 30 November 2021, the resident reported noise from her neighbour, particularly in regards to the front door. On 7 December 2021, the landlord put measures in place to alleviate the noise such as a door softener. The resident confirmed that the measures helped reduce the noise. Again, the landlord acted within the timeframes, was resolution-focused and took appropriate action.
On 22 December 2021, the resident reported issues with noise from her neighbour and their dog barking. The resident also said that she was verbally abused by her neighbour and her neighbour sometimes played loud music. The landlord asked the resident to fill in noise sheets and the resident did this and said the dog barked every five to fifteen minutes. On 11 January 2022, the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour about the noise, but the neighbour responded to say that the dog did not bark much and that the resident just hated them. It was reasonable for the landlord to send the neighbour a warning letter following receipt of the noise sheets – this was a proportionate response to the resident’s reports and demonstrated it was willing to start enforcement action when evidence was available. The landlord also responded within a reasonable period of time, especially as it was over a holiday period.
On 18 February 2022, the landlord sent the resident instructions on how to download and use a noise app to obtain further evidence. The resident did not want to do this and felt she had provided enough evidence. Given that the neighbour had disputed the allegations of noise, it was reasonable for the landlord to try to obtain evidence before it could determine the dog barking a ‘nuisance’ rather than just ‘annoying’. As there were no further reports the landlord closed the case in April 2022, which was also reasonable to do given reports had stopped.
On 26 January 2022, the resident said that her neighbour had verbally abused her workmen and she had reported it to the Police. On 9 February 2022, the landlord contacted the resident who said that the incident was still being investigated by the Police and the landlord agreed to link its investigation with the Police. On 10 February 2022, the landlord assessed the situation and said that mediation was not appropriate. The landlord called the resident to discuss the anti-social behaviour. The landlord again acted within its timeframes and appropriately worked with the Police which its anti-social behaviour policy said it should do.
On 11 February 2022, the resident sent audio files of her neighbour assaulting her, which the landlord listened to. The landlord emailed the resident and requested to speak on the phone. On 21 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord regarding further anti-social behaviour including recordings of the neighbour placing rubbish in her garden. The landlord emailed the resident to say that the Housing Officer was changing and the new Housing Officer would be in contact with the Police. The landlord’s notes show that the Police were considering action and would update the landlord on the outcome. Again, the landlord acted reasonably by liaising with the Police and the notes show that it did assess the recordings.
On 23 March 2022, the resident reported that her neighbour’s partner had assaulted her husband and it was being investigated by the Police. On 1 April 2022, the new Housing Officer emailed the Police to request information about the alleged assault. On the same date, the landlord called the resident and the resident commented that the Police were still investigating. On 6 April 2022, the landlord received an email from the Police confirming that the new incident was under investigation and therefore it could not provide any information until the events had been fully assessed and the parties interviewed. The landlord’s actions here were reasonable, as it contacted the Police to get more information and it was confirmed that it was a Police matter.
On 8 April 2022, the resident reported that her neighbour had ripped a net curtain and verbally abused her. On 11 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord regarding the alleged new issues. On 25 April 2022, the landlord had a telephone conversation with the resident and the resident agreed to send in video footage of the incident. It was confirmed that the Police investigation was still ongoing with regards to the abuse captured on CCTV. The landlord could have contacted the resident sooner; however, the landlord showed it was willing to look at the evidence the resident was going to send in and enquired about the Police investigation.
On 29 April 2022, the resident sent the landlord two audio files which she said had also been handed into the Police. The landlord listened to the audio clips and it said that it was a Police led investigation/public order offence. This showed that the landlord considered the evidence the resident was providing. On 16 May 2022, the landlord advised the resident to report any criminal damage to the Police. This showed that the landlord was communicating with the resident and it was reasonable to consider that there was an ongoing Police investigation.
On 26 May 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it would be liaising with the Police, as the neighbour had been cautioned. On 31 May 2022, the Police requested that the resident remove a net curtain to resolve the situation, as the net curtain was in a communal area. The Police said that the neighbour had a six-month conditional caution and was not allowed to harass or abuse the resident. On 7 June 2022, the landlord informed the resident that she should remove the net curtain. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this as the Police had requested this and the neighbour had made counter allegations about the net curtain. Given that this was a communal area that affected both parties, the landlord responded reasonably to resolve the issue.
On 10 June 2022, the resident alleged further anti-social behaviour from her neighbour which involved sweeping dirt on to her front door. The notes say the resident also informed the Police. The resident provided CCTV footage of her neighbour sweeping the hallway and swearing which the landlord looked at. On 15 June 2022, the landlord decided that the issues in regards to the net curtain and sweeping the communal area could be resolved by mediation. The landlord called the resident to advise her of this. Whilst the landlord looked at the evidence, it decided not to take any action. The resident had provided the evidence to the Police and they did not find any breach of the caution, and the landlord said it would only take further action if the Police advised it that the caution had been breached. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the Police’s view on whether the caution had been breached when deciding its next steps.
On 22 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to report further noise issues from her neighbour. On 27 June 2022, the landlord contacted the resident by telephone to discuss the issue and on the same date, the landlord contacted the resident’s neighbours regarding the reports of noise and sweeping dirt on to the resident’s mat. This shows that the landlord took the issues seriously by contacting both parties. Although the resident had made it clear that she did not want mediation, it may have been useful and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this again given the nature of the anti-social behaviour reported. The landlord considered further action such as a good neighbour agreement, but because the caution was for six months and it meant that the neighbour was not allowed to harass or abuse the resident, it decided this was inappropriate. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the Police action when deciding what actions it should take.
On 22 July 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour had abused workmen at her address. On 4 August 2022, the landlord confirmed with the Police that the resident had been told that no action could be taken as there was no complaint made by the workmen. The landlord also called the resident to clarify its position with regards to this issue and that there had been no further reports of noise. Once again, the landlord followed the report up with the Police which its anti-social behaviour policy required it to do. The landlord also contacted the resident to explain that workmen had not complained and once again offered mediation. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
It is clear from assessing the evidence that the landlord has responded to the reports of anti-social behaviour from the resident in line with the time frames in its anti-social behaviour policy. The landlord has also worked consistently with the Police and corresponded with the resident keeping her appropriately updated, which demonstrated good communications given the amount of reports that were made and the counterclaims from the neighbour.
The landlord thought mediation would have been the most suitable way to resolve the issues and this was reasonable to suggest. It also appears that the landlord did look at and assess all of the evidence the resident provided, including video and audio footage, but in the complaint responses the landlord said it would not review historic evidence. The landlord could have explained this better to the resident to avoid any confusion, and a recommendation has been made below to this effect.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds no maladministration in regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

Reasons

The landlord looked into each report of anti-social behaviour and responded to the resident to obtain further information. The landlord liaised with the Police and the neighbour, but also had to consider the neighbour’s counter allegations. Where the anti-social behaviour was annoying to the resident but ‘low level’ in nature, this meant that mediation may have been the most appropriate solution. The landlord did consider the resident’s evidence, including audio and video recordings, and it did put in measures to reduce noise and sent a warning to the neighbour.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord clarify with its residents exactly what evidence has been considered, rather than only stating that historic evidence would not be looked into.
The landlord should advise this Service of its intentions in regard to the above recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.