Bristol City Council (202120397)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120397

Bristol City Council

25 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the poor condition of their neighbour’s garden.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident has been regularly reporting issues with the condition of her neighbour’s garden since 15 May 2019, including issues with rubbish, rats, dog waste and the garden being overgrown. The resident also reported that her neighbour was abusive when she tried to discuss the issues with them. In response, the landlord had carried out several visits and sent warning letters to the resident’s neighbour.
  3. The resident contacted this Service on 4 December 2021, as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of the poor condition of her neighbour’s garden. This Service subsequently contacted the landlord on 6 December 2021, and the landlord raised a complaint through its internal complaints process.
  4. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint, it recognised that there had been delays, poor communication and periods of inaction in its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with her neighbour’s garden, due to the impact of COVID-19 on the landlord’s service and staff shortages. It apologised for the time, trouble, distress, frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident. It advised it was unable to provide an accurate timeline of its intended actions, but it would contact the resident to discuss its next action and provide her with monthly updates.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied as the reported issues with the resident’s garden were still ongoing. She wanted the landlord to enforce the tenancy agreement and provide support to her neighbour to resolve the issues if required.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Under Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from March 2021, which was the most recent report made by the resident. Prior to 10 March 2021, there was a six-month period where there is no evidence of any reports about the garden being made to the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the poor condition of their neighbour’s garden.

  1. The tenancy agreement states “you must maintain your garden including any hedges and trees”. As the resident’s neighbour was also a tenant of the landlord, upon receiving the resident’s reports, the landlord would be expected to assess the issues with the garden and take action to resolve any identified issues.
  2. It is not disputed that there have been failings by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of her neighbour’s garden. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses 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.
  3. In this case, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged there were delays, periods of inaction and poor communication in its handling of the resident’s reports of the unsatisfactory condition of her neighbour’s garden. The resident reported on 10 March 2021 that her neighbour’s garden was still overgrown. The landlord acted reasonably as it sent a breach of tenancy warning letter to the neighbour on 1 April 2021 The letter reminded the neighbour of their responsibility to maintain the garden and advised that the landlord could pursue legal action against them if they did not resolve the issues with their garden . It also outlined its intended plan of action to the resident, which included sending warning letters at three-week intervals, and taking formal action if there was no positive outcome after five letters. As a result, the landlord clearly managed the resident’s expectations regarding the next steps. However, from the evidence provided by the landlord, it only sent three letters to the neighbour, with the last letter being sent on 14 May 2021, so did not fulfil its promised actions. The resident chased the landlord on 9 July 2021 as it said that the garden issues were ongoing, but there is no evidence to suggest the landlord proceeded with any action against the neighbour.
  4. As there had been no further action by the landlord to resolve the reported issues, the resident raised a formal complaint. In its initial complaint response, the landlord identified the cause of its failings was due to low staffing levels, and it took steps to improve its service by recruiting more housing officers. This demonstrated that the landlord had learned from the outcome of the complaint and taken steps to prevent similar issues occurring in the future.
  5. However, it was inappropriate for the landlord to advise in its stage one response on 16 December 2021, that it would not be able to proceed with any action on the resident’s reports until April 2021 when it had recruited extra staff. Regardless of whether the landlord was unable to complete more time-consuming actions such as property visits, it should have considered taking actions such as sending further warning letters to the neighbour, which would have taken less of the landlord’s time and resources to complete. As it failed to assess whether alternative actions could be taken, it caused an additional four-month period of inaction, which led to a prolonged impact on the resident. However, it is recognised that the landlord was transparent with the resident about the reasons for the delay, which meant it reasonably managed her expectations.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 April 2022, as she said the issues with her neighbour’s garden were getting worse. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it advised that it could not confirm a timeframe for completing the works, but it would provide monthly updates. Considering the extended time period the issues had been ongoing, the landlord should have been specific in outlining its intended actions, in order to give the resident reassurance the issues would be resolved. Following completion of the complaints process, the landlord visited the neighbour and sent a letter advising she was in breach of her tenancy. However, it has not adhered to its promise to provide the resident with monthly updates, and there is no evidence to confirm the issues have been resolved. The landlord should have demonstrated that it had considered more significant action, such as supporting the neighbour to complete the required work to the garden or pursuing tenancy action due to the breach of tenancy.
  7. Overall, the landlord has failed to adhere to the actions it has outlined to the resident, keep her reasonably updated or resolve the issue with the neighbour’s garden. If the garden remains in a poor condition, the landlord is ordered to provide a clear plan to the resident and ensure the issue is resolved within four weeks of the date of this report.
  8. This Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. In line with this guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has acknowledged its failings but had failed to address the detriment on the resident or offer proportionate compensation. The resident advised the landlord that the issues were causing her stress. It is also recognised that she experienced significant time and trouble in pursuing the landlord to resolve the issues. As a result of the failings identified and the impact on the resident the landlord is ordered to pay her £300 compensation. If there are additional delays, the landlord should assess whether it should offer additional compensation at that stage.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports about the poor condition of their neighbour’s garden.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 due to its failings in its handling of the resident’s reports about the poor condition of their neighbour’s garden, within four weeks of the date of this report.
  2. The landlord is ordered to ensure the condition of the resident’s neighbour’s garden is resolved within six weeks of the date of this report. It should provide the resident with weekly updates on the progress.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with these orders within the relevant timeframes.