Bristol City Council (202101833)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101833

Bristol City Council

18 March 2022


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat in a converted house. The resident’s neighbour (Miss A) lives in the flat above.
  2. The landlord opened an ASB case for the resident on 22 January 2019 in response to her reports of Miss A moving her recycling bins away from her front door. Miss A made counter allegations of ASB by the resident. The landlord’s records say the resident confirmed that she had carried out actions in retaliation against Miss A. The landlord carried out a risk assessment, which defined the risk to the resident as low, wrote a warning letter to Miss A and liaised with the police, who had received reports from the resident of harassment by Miss A.
  3. The landlord carried out a joint visit to both the resident and Miss A on 29 January 2019 and, after both raised their points of conflict with the landlord. Both parties signed a Good Neighbour Agreement (GNA). The landlord spoke to the resident at the end of March 2019 when she confirmed that there had been no further incidents of ASB.
  4. The landlord opened a new ASB case for the resident on 29 May 2019 in response to her reports of Miss A’s dogs being allowed unattended in the communal area without being on a lead. She reported on 3 and 6 June 2019 that Miss A had left items outside her property which obstructed the resident from leaving the building and had been shouting at a member of the resident’s household. The landlord liaised with the police due to a serious counter allegation from Miss A against the resident.
  5. The landlord and the police visited the resident on 25 June 2019 to ask that she comply with the GNA. It provided diary sheets for her to complete in the event of any further ASB incidents. The resident made two further reports of Miss A obstructing her gate on 27 and 28 June 2019 and the landlord responded on 3 July 2019 to encourage her to record incidents in the diary sheets and offer her conflict resolution coaching.
  6. The resident was informed by the local authority’s environmental health team on 28 August 2019 that there was no evidence of statutory noise nuisance from Miss A following an investigation by environmental health.
  7. On 30 August 2019, the landlord arranged a joint meeting with the resident, the police and a support agency. The landlord also held a separate meeting with Miss A. The landlord advised the resident hat the nature of the reported ASB was a neighbour dispute which was escalating due to retaliatory reporting. The resident was advised to move forward from the historical issues. The landlord also liaised with the local authority’s environmental health team regarding the resident’s reports of noise from Miss A.
  8. In response to further reports from the resident of noise by Miss A, on 19 September 2019, the landlord provided diary sheets for her to complete. It advised her only to record noise that had not been previously investigated, as the previously reported noise was considered by the environmental health team to be household living noise.
  9. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 September 2019 to confirm the discussions in the meeting on 30 August 2019. This letter noted that she committed to accepting that not all noise was noise nuisance and that she should only report tenancy breaches to the landlord such as excessive noise. This letter further stated that repeated reporting of matters already investigated could be considered to be harassment of the other party. The landlord recorded that the resident agreed not to report her dissatisfaction with everyday noise and activities, and to receive advice from her support worker on how to deal with the distress she reported. It recommended the resident to ask Miss A to move any items on the communal path in the first instance. It also recommended that she consider a referral for conflict resolution coaching.
  10. The resident continued to report issues causing friction between herself and Miss A between September and December 2019. This concerned noise, issues with Miss A’s dogs and the use of the communal path. The landlord visited to inspect these reports but found no items on the path. The landlord visited the resident on 7 October 2019 in response to reports of her using her CCTV inappropriately. It asked her to make changes to the positioning of the CCTV to ensure it was compliant with data protection regulations. The resident reported noise from Miss A’s property and her dog not being on a lead in communal areas. The landlord advised her to record these incidents in her ASB diary and to break the cycle of retaliatory reporting between her and Miss A. It also asked her to ensure that she was not reporting noise which had already been found not to be a statutory nuisance. On 17 December 2019, the resident reported that she had her windows broken. The landlord relayed this to Homechoice (a service for its residents wishing to move to another property) and informed the resident on 16 January 2020 that her banding for a home move had been raised to band two. 
  11. On 21 January 2020, the landlord spoke to Miss A about the resident’s reports of items on the communal path and issues with her dogs. In February 2020, it corresponded with her about Miss A’s dogs and, in response to photographs she provided, it wrote to Miss A on 2 March 2020 to ask her to keep her dogs on leads in communal areas.
  12. The landlord attempted calls to the resident on 1 and 3 April 2020. She emailed it on 27 April and 31 May 2020 to report Miss A playing music and watching television until late at night, leaving rubbish and an extension wire on the communal path, and not keeping her dogs on leads on the communal path. It advised her on 8 June 2020 that it would visit Miss A to discuss the dogs and use of the communal path. The landlord advised that diary sheets detailed the reported noise issues were required to enable it to investigate further. On 16 June 2020, it informed the resident that its inspection of the communal path did not find evidence of a breach of tenancy conditions
  13. On 15 June 2020, the landlord opened a new ASB case in response to an incident involving an altercation between Miss A, two other neighbours and the resident which was attended by the police. The resident reported that one neighbour spat at her and requested that the landlord provide her with emergency alternative accommodation. The landlord and the police attended a joint meeting with the resident on 23 June 2020 in which she was advised to avoid confrontation with her neighbours. The police found no evidence to take further action against her neighbours and said there was no evidence that it was unsafe for her to continue living at the property. The landlord agreed to send warning letters to the neighbours at the resident’s request.
  14. In July 2020, the landlord liaised with the resident, her support worker and other third parties to arrange support for her and her children. The ASB case was closed on 7 August 2020, after it spoke to her on the telephone to confirm to her that she would receive support from a third-party agency. The landlord noted that there had been no further reports of verbal abuse and discussed strategies with her for avoiding confrontation with her neighbours.
  15. After receiving contact from the resident, the Ombudsman intervened on 26 April 2021 to request the landlord consider her dissatisfaction with its handling of her reports of ASB through its complaints procedure. This Service chased the landlord for a response on 13 May 2021 and the landlord called the resident the following day to discuss the complaint. The landlord advised her that a managed move was not an appropriate way to address the ASB she had reported given that the police had confirmed it was safe for her to continue living at the property. It advised its housing officer would visit the property to inspect the communal path and it would liaise with the police over Miss A potentially filming the resident with her iPad. The landlord suggested the resident send a polite note to Miss A to request the return of a ball kicked into her garden.
  16. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 14 May 2021 after speaking to her on the telephone. In this, it noted that her complaint was about:
    1. She felt that the landlord was not protecting her and “forcing” her to remain at the property which was causing significant distress to her and her family.
    2. The resident felt that Miss A was watching her and confronting her despite her attempting to avoid contact.
    3. She had experienced distress due to the lack of sleep and intimidation caused by Miss A.
    4. Miss A had spread rumours about the resident killing Miss A’s dog.
  17. The landlord confirmed that there was no current ASB case open for the resident and that the police had advised that it was safe to remain at her property. Therefore, it could not make a referral for an urgent move. The landlord confirmed that it had awarded Band 2 for her housing application due to the ASB issues she had experienced with her neighbour. It detailed other ways in which she may find alternative accommodation, such as through a mutual exchange or a private landlord.
  18. The landlord acknowledged that the relationship between the resident and Miss A had broken down and suggested that she continue to seek support from her support agencies. It noted that she had previously undertaken conflict resolution coaching and offered to refer her for this again if she wished.
  19. The landlord advised the resident that it would be requesting an update from the police about her reports of Miss A recording her with an iPad. It provided a copy of the letter from September 2019 which detailed the agreements between her and Miss A to minimise contact with each other. The landlord encouraged the resident to report any new instances of ASB or intimidation to itself or the police as appropriate. It detailed the actions it agreed with her on the telephone that day:
    1. The resident was to write a note to Miss A about her son’s ball which Miss A had not returned from her garden.
    2. The landlord did not consider Miss A’s bins being placed on the resident’s driveway as a breach of tenancy.
    3. The landlord would investigate the resident’s report of Miss A leaving a chair on the communal path as a possible health and safety concern which may be a breach of tenancy.
    4. It would liaise with the police about Miss A’s reportedly filming the resident with an iPad.
  20. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 7 June 2021. She said that it had not protected her from ASB. The resident continued to be unhappy with noise from Miss A’s, property, the placement of bins on the driveway and held that she was filming her with her iPad.
  21. The landlord responded to the resident at the final stage of its complaint procedure on 21 June 2021. In this, it reiterated the content of its stage one complaint response. Additionally, it confirmed that the police had fed back to it that there was no cause for further investigation of Miss A’s use of her iPad, and the landlord’s ASB team was investigating the resident’s report of a chair being left on the communal path. The landlord stated that there was no evidence of a breach of a tenancy and it was satisfied it had investigated the resident’s reports of ASB in accordance with its policies and procedures.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s “Tackling ASB” policy confirms that it considers ASB to include noise and “nuisance behaviour”. This policy states that the landlord will utilise informal measures to address ASB as appropriate, dependent on the nature and impact of the ASB on the community. These actions may include mediation and support services, the use of acceptable behaviour contracts and warning letters. If these measures fail, then the landlord will move to formal action. The policy also states that the landlord will work with a range of partner agencies to find sustainable solutions to continued ASB.
  2. It should be clarified that it is outside the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether some is responsible for ASB. Rather, it is the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the landlord’s actions in response to the reports of ASB were reasonable, proportionate and in accordance with its obligations.
  3. When a landlord receives a report of ASB from its tenant, it would be expected to investigate the report accordingly and take reasonable and proportionate actions dependent on the level of ASB which could be evidenced. For a landlord to take tenancy enforcement action against a tenant, it would be expected to have gathered a substantial body of evidence which could be corroborated by independent sources. The landlord would be expected to liaise with other agencies such as the police and environmental health to gather evidence and manage ASB where appropriate.
  4. While it is noted that the resident has reported ASB from Miss A for an extended period of time, there were no instances where the landlord’s investigations of her reports found that there was evidence of breaches of Miss A’s tenancy. The landlord acted appropriately by liaising with the local authority’s environmental health team on 30 August 2019, when it was confirmed that there was no evidence of statutory noise nuisance. In the absence of such evidence, it would not have been reasonable for the landlord to pursue any formal tenancy enforcement action against Miss A. The landlord inspected the communal path on several occasions and found no evidence of a breach of tenancy conditions. It liaised with the police on 23 June 2019 about the reports of harassment; 25 June 2020 regarding her report of verbal abuse and 9 June 2021 about Miss A’s use of the iPad. On each occasion it was found that there was no actionable ASB to pursue. It was therefore reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to implement informal measures to address the ASB reports, such as use of the good neighbour agreement and sending warning letters to alleged perpetrators.
  5. While no actionable ASB was identified, the landlord did recognise that the reported ASB had an impact on the resident. It was therefore reasonable for it to liaise with the Homechoice service, relayed to her 16 January 2020, to improve her banding for a home move. The landlord also took reasonable steps to address the resident’s distress by arranging for additional support from third party agencies and offering her support through conflict coaching. These were proportionate responses from it to address the impact on the resident of the reported ASB.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps to support the resident and address her reports of ASB.