Bristol City Council (202110758)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110758

Bristol City Council

31 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports about the conduct of the residents in relation to work at the property from:
1. The contractor.
2. A surveyor.

Background and summary of events

Background

At the time of the events that form the complaint, the residents had an introductory tenancy with the landlord. The property is an end of terrace house.
The tenancy agreement says tenants must not threaten, be violent, aggressive or abusive towards any employee of the landlord or its representatives, agents or contractors. Tenants will be held responsible if anyone else is involved in such behaviour on behalf of the tenant or for their benefit.
The landlord’s code of conduct for employees states that its employees are expected to abide by the seven principles of public life which include integrity; objectivity, accountability openness and honesty.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond within 15 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two.

Summary of events

Both residents contacted the landlord regarding events relating to this complaint. For ease I have referred to the residents throughout when referring to correspondence.
In an internal email dated 19 February 2021 the surveyor noted that when he had been at the property, the male resident had “started to become very aggressive in his manner and tone he was demanding …. in the few minutes that we were there [the resident] turned very aggressive and demanded that we do something, he was also coming within two metres of [the people attending] and invading our personal space (we had PPE on) and was very intimidating and threatening, we both agreed to leave the property before this escalated further”.
On 25 February 2021 the surveyor sent an email to the residents saying he had been made aware that they had been contacting the contractor direct to “demand that they carry out work at the property” and also chasing up other work to the garden as well as requesting documents. He asked the residents to stop “harassing our contractors now and in the future” and asked that they direct any queries to the landlord. In their response, the residents confirmed they had contacted the contractor because they had not heard from the landlord nor the contractor about when the work would be carried out.
Later that day, the landlord told the resident’s wife that it had received reports that the resident had been verbally abusive to the contactor on 19 February 2021 while they were attempting repairs. It warned that, under the tenancy agreement, residents must not threaten, be violent, aggressive or abusive towards its staff or contractors. The landlord acknowledged that disrepair claims “could be emotive” and that it would not issue a breach of tenancy letter at that time.
On the same day the residents contacted the landlord saying these allegations were false and asked for an apology.
The residents made a formal complaint about this issue the same day.
On 26 February 2021 the residents told the landlord that he had met with two of the landlord’s surveyors who confirmed the allegations of harassment did not come from them and that he had never been rude to them. (Neither of these surveyors had made the allegation of 19 February 2021.) He asked the landlord to investigate.
On 3 March 2021 the residents asked the contractor for a statement of their version of events from the incident of 19 February 2021. There is no evidence that the contractor responded.
On 10 March 2021 the surveyor told the landlord in an internal email that the issue with the correspondence of 25 February 2021 was that it stated that the male resident was rude to the contractors but that was not the case; he had been “intimidating and rude to [landlord] staff”.
On the same day the landlord responded to the residents at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. In relation to the complaint to the Ombudsman, the main point was:
1. The conduct of the surveyor: having investigated, there was no evidence that the surveyor made allegations against the resident. It said it could not confirm what was said on site as there was no supporting evidence or witnesses. It added it believed the surveyor followed its code of conduct expected of its staff.
The landlord did not uphold the complaint. It explained how the residents could escalate the complaint.
On 12 March 2021 the resident said false allegations had been made against him by the landlord. He said he had investigated this matter himself and spoken to the void surveyors who were at the property at the same time. He said the contractor also did not support these false allegations. The resident said he wanted an apology and for this false allegation to be removed from the records.
On 16 April 2021 the residents asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. They made several points including harassing a contractor was a serious allegation to make. They said making two phone calls to check the date the contractor was coming out was “far from harassment”.
On 10 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the residents thanking them for the meeting earlier that day. It apologised for the inaccuracies in its email of 25 February 2021. It said, while no breach of tenancy letter had been issued, it should have thoroughly checked the reports to confirm the dates and parties involved in the allegation before suggesting there had been inappropriate behaviour by the resident. The landlord said that it would speak to its contractor to make it clear there had been inaccuracies in its email. It apologised for the content of the email and its delay in speaking to the resident. It explained that the residents could escalate this matter to stage two.
On the same day the residents told the landlord that they accepted the landlord’s apology and that they considered the matter closed.
On 14 May 2021 the landlord issued its final response to the residents under its formal complaints procedure. The main points in relation to the complaints brought to the Ombudsman were:
1. The contractor had told the landlord that the residents had contacted them asking to carry out work immediately. It explained the word “harassing” had been used as it had felt such requests and the number of calls went beyond “expected contact”. It said that, whilst the residents’ actions might not have been intended to come across as harassment, the contact was considered excessive and unreasonable in tone and therefore could constitute harassment.
2. The surveyor felt it was necessary to ask the resident to stop contacting the contractor and instead communicate through the landlord and it could not hold them at fault for that. It said it could not agree with his request that the surveyor was not to be involved with the property again.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On the same day the resident told the landlord no evidence had ever been given to support the claim of harassment towards a contractor. It said that their telephone records show only two phone calls made and this would not be deemed as harassment.
On 19 May 2021 the landlord spoke to the contractor. The note of the call says that the contractor had taken more than two calls from the residents and they had also had to provide guidance to staff about how to deal with such calls.
In response to contact from the residents, on 3 June 2021 the landlord said it believed the stage one complaint response should have offered a correction to the original warning email and explained that the complaint regarding the resident behaving in an aggressive manner had come from a member of the council staff and not from a contractor. The landlord added that while the details in the warning were incorrect, the residents should still bear in mind that the conditions of the tenancy agreement stated, ‘You must not threaten, be violent, aggressive or abusive towards any employee of [the local authority] or our representatives, agents or contractors”. It added that any breach of that condition might lead to action being taken against their tenancy.
The landlord also said that, while the residents might feel they had not harassed its contractor, having spoken to both council staff members and representatives of the contractor, it stood by the final response sent to them in this matter. It confirmed that the email was directed to the resident as he had responsibilities for household members, and it was intended to stop any member of the household contacting its contractor. The landlord signposted the residents to the Ombudsman.
When the residents approached the Ombudsman, they said they felt the allegation caused distress to the family who were new tenants on an introductory tenancy as were worried they could have lost their tenancy. They said they had lost trust in the landlord. They said they were seeking an apology from the person who had made the allegation; retraining to be given to staff so that allegations were investigated before letters were sent out and compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports about the conduct of the residents in relation to work at the property from the contractor

While this Service has not seen the evidence which led to the email of 25 February 2021, the residents confirmed they had contacted the contractor direct. Evidence has been seen that the contractor subsequently confirmed they had taken multiple calls from the residents.
The email to the residents was reasonable to inform them that contact about the works should be directed to the landlord, rather than the contractor, because it was ultimately responsible for the works and the actions of the contractor. However, without giving details of the extent of the contact, the use of the word “harassing” suggests a lack of impartiality by the author of the email. While an explanation was given in the final response about the use of this word, again further factual evidence to support that assertion should have been provided. An order has been made below for the landlord to ensure that, when writing to residents about any allegations made against them, that evidence (dates/times/what was said) is included in this correspondence.
While the email itself to tell the residents to contact the landlord and not the contractors was reasonable, some of the wording in the email was not appropriate and that was a service failure.

The landlord’s handling of reports about the conduct of the residents in relation to work at the property from the surveyor

The email of 25 February 2021 to the resident’s wife was factually incorrect; the report was of the resident being intimidating and threatening to the surveyor, not the contractor. Despite the surveyor confirming this prior to the stage one response, the stage one response did not make this clear. The landlord subsequently apologised for this oversight on 10 May 2021 and a further email of 3 June 2021 clarified this matter further. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right sooner by not taking the surveyor’s email into account when responding at stage one.
The residents refuted the allegation made by the surveyor. In the stage one response, the landlord said it could not confirm what was said on site as there had been no witnesses. The detailed allegation by the surveyor was sufficient evidence for the landlord to issue the email of 25 February 2021. A tenancy warning letter was not sent, rather the landlord explained the residents’ obligations under the tenancy agreement (paragraph 3). This was also reasonable given that (as far as the evidence shows) this was the first instance where such behaviour had been alleged.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the residents’ complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The apology by the landlord was a proportionate way to put matters right. There was no tenancy warning issued; therefore, the landlord’s email of 25 February 2021 would have had no impact on the introductory tenancy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports about the conduct of the residents in relation to work at the property from the contractor.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the residents which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its handling of reports about the conduct of the residents in relation to work at the property from the surveyor.

Reasons

The email to the residents asking them to contact the landlord, not the contractors was reasonable although more detail should have been given to support the allegation of harassment.
Th email to the residents warning of their obligations under the tenancy was also reasonable. There was a factual inaccuracy in that email for which the landlord later apologised.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide compliance with this order to the Ombudsman:
1. To make staff aware that, when writing to residents about any allegations made against them, that evidence (dates/times/what was said) is included in this correspondence.