Bristol City Council (202324241)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat which is located within a building managed by the landlord. He told the landlord he was assaulted on 3 separate occasions in communal parts of the building. He complained with the assistance of an advocate, as he has vulnerabilities, about how it responded to these reports. He was unhappy with its final response to his complaint and asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of assault.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of assault.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s reports of assault

6. The landlord has not provided us with enough evidence to show that it handled the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy. Its communications with him were also poor.

Handling of the complaint

7. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s request to escalate his initial complaint to stage 2. It also failed to respond to new complaints he raised in line with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have looked at

8. The resident complained to the landlord in March 2024 about 3 assault incidents occurring between 2019 and 2022. It could have told him that due to the amount of time that had passed, it was not required by its complaints policy to respond. Instead, it exercised its discretion and issued a stage 1 response to incidents 1 and 3. Given this, we have included these incidents within the scope of our investigation despite the resident’s delay in raising a formal complaint.
9. We have also included incident 2 within the scope of our investigation even though the landlord never issued a stage 2 response to this complaint. This is because there were failures in how the landlord processed the resident’s escalation request. We have explained these failures in the complaint handling assessment section below.

Handling of incident 1

10. The landlord said in its stage 1 response to incident 1 that it had no prior record of this altercation involving another tenant. We have no way of knowing why this is. It may be that the resident did not report it to his housing officer at the time. If he did, it may be that the housing officer did not record it or, they did, but the landlord no longer held the record. We are therefore unable to investigate how the landlord dealt with this incident at the time it occurred as no records exist and we cannot say either way if it knew about it.
11. We are satisfied, however, that the landlord provided a reasonable response to the resident’s complaint about this incident. Although it was unable to find any records of the incident, it considered whether the other tenant posed an ongoing risk to the resident. It reasonably concluded they did not given they had since moved out of the building and the resident had raised no further concerns about them.

Handling of incidents 2 and 3

12. We asked the landlord to provide us with any relevant evidence showing how it responded to the resident’s reports of incidents 2 and 3. Other than its complaint responses, the only information it gave us was notes from its ASB case file. These notes are lacking in detail which has made it difficult for us to understand what action it took.
13. We acknowledge that by the time we asked it to provide evidence, over 2 years had passed since the incidents occurred. However, given the serious nature of the resident’s reports, we would expect the landlord to have retained all relevant records.
14. The lack of information means we are unable to conclude that the landlord investigated incidents 2 and 3 in line with its ASB policy. For example:
    1. It told us it “believed” that caretaking management made contact with the caretaker to discuss incident 2 in which his family member was accused. However, there is no evidence on the case file to show that any such contact was made. We have seen no records detailing the caretaker’s version of events.
    2. It told us it did not complete a risk assessment when the resident reported incident 2 because he did not want it to do so. This is not supported by the evidence in the case file which contains an incomplete risk assessment form. The form records that the risk assessment was not completed as the resident asked the landlord to speak to his support worker as he was unwell. In other words, he redirected its efforts to complete a risk assessment rather than asking it not to do so.
    3. Although the landlord then spoke to the support worker, there is no evidence on the case file that it attempted to complete a risk assessment based on this discussion.
    4. There is no evidence on the case file that it considered whether it should complete a risk assessment following the resident’s report of a further serious assault 4 months later (incident 3).
    5. There is no information on the case file about any discussions the landlord had with the resident or his support worker about incident 3 following his initial report.
    6. The case file states that the landlord asked the police for an update about incident 3 in January 2023. However, it does not record what the police response was.
    7. When the landlord decided to close the ASB case in February 2023, it recorded in the case file that it did not know who the perpetrator of incident 3 was. However, it did not provide a reason as to why it was also taking no further action in relation to incident 2.
    8. There is no evidence it communicated the outcome of its investigations andits decision to close the ASB caseto the resident or his support worker.
15. The landlord’s poor communication with the resident during its investigation of incidents 2 and 3 caused him distress and uncertainty. Due to his mental health and learning needs, he engaged the services of an advocacy agency with drafting his complaint letters in June 2022 and March 2024. He also required our assistance to escalate the complaint. This meant that due to his vulnerabilities, which the landlord was aware of, it took him more time and trouble to complain than it may have taken other residents. In recognition of this, and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered it to pay him £400 compensation. This is for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communications.
16. We acknowledge that even if the landlord’s communications with the resident had been better, it is unlikely that the outcome of its investigations would have changed. There was no CCTV footage in the communal areas where incidents 2 and 3 took place. The landlord would therefore have had no way to verify the accuracy of accounts from the parties involved if they differed. In relation to incident 3, it was unable to confirm the perpetrator’s identity. The police had also been unable to confirm the identity and had taken no further action in response to either incident.
17. Given this and the amount of time that has passed, we have not ordered the landlord to take any further investigative action. However, it should meet with the resident to discuss any current concerns he may have about his safety in the building.

Complaint response to incident 2

18. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process that it operates in line with its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It failed to explain this to the resident when it issued its stage 1 response in July 2022 to the complaint about incident 2. It did not tell him that, in line with its policy, he could ask it to escalate the complaint but should do so within 20 working days.
19. The resident wrote to the landlord 20 months later, in March 2024, and asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2. Within his letter he complained about all 3 assault incidents. As the landlord had not previously investigated its handling of incidents 1 and 3 through its complaints process, it raised a new stage 1 complaint. This was in line with its complaints policy.
20. The landlord excluded incident 2 from its new stage 1 investigation. Ittold the resident this was because it had previously issued a stage 1 response to incident 2. This was in keeping with its policy as the landlord will not usually investigate the same issue at stage 1 twice. However, it should have considered escalating the complaint about incident 2 to stage 2. We have seen no evidence it did this.
21. We therefore do not know why the landlord did not issue a stage 2 response to incident 2. It may have considered, for example, that too much time had passed since it issued the stage 1 response. However, if that were the case, it should have explained to the resident that it was not accepting the escalation request for this reason. We would also have expected to see evidence that it had taken any mitigating factors into account before reaching this decision. For example, that it failed to tell the resident that he could escalate the complaint, which may have contributed to his delay in doing so.
22. In November 2025, the landlord acknowledged in a letter to the resident that it had failed to provide escalation information in its stage 1 response. It apologised and offered the resident £150 compensation. However, it still did not explain why it had not escalated the complaint about incident 2 to stage 2.
23. Given the amount of time that has passed, we have not ordered the landlord to open a stage 2 investigation into incident 2. However, we have ordered it to meet with the resident to discuss any current safety concerns he may have. If he is not happy with how it responds to any current safety concerns he raises, he may raise a new complaint.

Complaint responses to incidents 1 and 3

24. Although the landlord correctly raised a new stage 1 complaint about incidents 1 and 3, it appears to have delayed in issuing its response. It had not given us any records to show what date it received the resident’s complaint letter or that it acknowledged receipt as required by its policy. However, the complaint letter was dated 20 March 2024 and it issued its stage 1 response on 18 June 2024. Therefore, assuming it received the letter shortly after 20 March 2024, it failed to respond within 15 working days in line with its complaints policy at that time.
25. The landlord also delayed in issuing its stage 2 response in line with its complaints policy. It should have responded by 13 November 2024 but did not do so until 28 November 2024. It acknowledged and apologised for this delay within its response.
26. As the landlord has not apologised for all of its complaint handling failures in this case, we have ordered it to do so. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, we have ordered it to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience these failures caused. However, if it has already paid the £150 it offered him in November 2025, it may deduct this from the £200 ordered.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s ASB case file did not contain detailed notes to support its decision making. This contributed to our finding of maladministration as we were unable to conclude it had complied with its policy when responding to the resident’s reports of assaults. It should learn from this and, in doing so, may wish to review our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023).

Communication

28. The landlord’s communication with the resident during its investigation of the reported assault incidents was poor. It failed to update him on key events, such as its decision to close the ASB file. To encourage better engagement going forward, we have ordered the landlord to meet with the resident to discuss his safety concerns.