Bristol City Council (202331899)

Background

1. From late 2021 the resident was reporting noise and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from their neighbour, including a physical assault and death threats. We investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB (under reference 202216050).  We found some failures for not following steps in the ASB policy, such as completing risk assessments and considering the resident’s vulnerabilities. The resident complained separately about the later involvement of a new housing officer from July 2022 who they asked to be removed from the case and disciplined.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about staff conduct.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about staff conduct.
   2. Associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord showed that it investigated and responded reasonably to most aspects of the resident’s concerns about the member of staff. It also recognised failings in its service and took some appropriate action to attempt to put things right. However, it did not address all aspects that it agreed to.
5. The landlord also exceeded its policy timescales for both complaint responses. While it took some steps to remedy the impact of the delay, it did not acknowledge all complaint handling failures.

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.

6. Our role in complaints about staff conduct is to assess whether the landlord investigated the concerns appropriately, responded adequately, and took proportionate action based on the information available. The landlord had no defined process for handling staff conduct complaints. So, we have considered what would be reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances, guided by the principles of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in addressing all aspects, explaining decisions, and referring to relevant policies.
7. The landlord’s staff conduct policy states it expects employees to be “courteous, efficient and impartial”. It also states employees must follow the relevant code of practice to their roles. In this case this would be statutory government guidance for dealing with ASB and the landlord’s policy, which recognised its obligations.
8. We are satisfied that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concern that the officer did not take any enforcement action. It acknowledged the resident’s perception that the officer had not done enough to address the problems with the neighbour. It also reflected the officer’s view that they felt they had done everything to support and progress the case. The landlord gave some explanations about why the records led it to conclude that the officer had fulfilled the expectations of the role, such as liaising with other agencies and keeping the resident updated. These are both actions the landlord’s ASB policy states it will take when managing a case.
9. The landlord also apologised and acknowledged that the officer should have acted on the resident’s October 2022 email. Its reassurance that this failure did not impact the progress of the case was reasonable. There is no indication from the landlord’s responses that the officer deliberately failed to act on the email. But it was appropriate to recognise the resident’s view that this contributed to them feeling unsupported, as it did in its final response. Not acting on the complaint, whatever the reason, was not in line with the principles of the staff conduct policy to be efficient. It was therefore an appropriate remedy for the landlord to apologise and acknowledge the impact it caused.
10. The landlord also confirmed the officer had acted on the resident’s report about the motorbike by giving a verbal and written warning. And explained that it would take enforcement action when it was proportionate and evidence based, such as for the potential breaches of the injunction. The approach was in keeping with the landlord’s ASB policy.
11. While the landlord responded to most aspects, it did not fully address all the resident’s concerns their reports were not acted on. They cited an occasion where they said the officer had downplayed their report of the neighbour smoking cannabis. This was something the landlord confirmed informally to the resident that it would further investigate. However, there is no reference to it doing so in the final response or evidence it did. The landlord should have either addressed this aspect or explained why it had not done so (such as being dependent upon the availability of evidence). That it did not do this was a failing and missed opportunity to demonstrate that the resident’s concerns had been fully considered.
12. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the tenancy warning was partly reasonable. It was factually correct to state that the resident was responsible for maintaining their garden and that the landlord has a responsibility to investigate all potential breaches. However, it also recognised that the reason the resident had been unable to tend to the garden was related to the ASB case. It would have been appropriate to acknowledge and apologise for the upset this caused them. However, the landlord found evidence that the officer acted in a way that directly contravened the behaviours it expects staff to follow, in partially its requirement to remain impartial.
13. The landlord recognised the relationship between the resident and officer had broken down to such an extent that it should have agreed to reassign the case. It was positive it realised this and later acted to do so.
14. There were service failures that caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience. They also likely contributed to the resident feeling unsupported. As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation within the range (£50-£100) our remedies guidance recommends.

15. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time set out its 2 stage complaints process that aligned with the requirements of the Code. The policy first defined a complaint as being an “an expression of dissatisfaction” with its service or staff.
16. On 14 October 2022, the resident sent an email expressing dissatisfaction with how the officer had dealt with their reports. This should have been escalated through the landlord’s complaints process. Appropriately it did acknowledge and apologise for its failure to do this. It also confirmed that its failure did not impact the progress of the ASB case. These were reasonable actions to put right the impact, given that we have seen no record of the resident chasing a response in the intervening months.
17. Under its process, it must acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days and confirm a summary of the issues. It must then respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. If the landlord needs more time, it will let the resident know and give a revised timescale of no longer than 20 working days.
18. The landlord deviated from its policy process and timescales in the following ways:
    1. Not formally acknowledging the complaint (4 July 2023) and escalation request (27 July 2023) and the issues raised.
    2. Exceeding the stage 1 timescale by 4 working days on 25 July 2023 because of its failure to acknowledge the complaint.
    3. Although it informally agreed it would respond at stage 2, it did not do this until we asked it to, meaning it exceeded its timescale by over a year.
19. In its final response, the landlord took some appropriate steps to put right the impact of the delayed stage 2 response. It explained the reason it did not investigate this was because we were investigating the resident’s earlier complaint. It acknowledged its failure, apologised, and awarded compensation of £100. We were not given or have seen evidence of a compensation policy. As such, we have considered the reasonableness of this based on our remedies guidance. The amount awarded was within the range our remedies guidance recommends for low and short-lived impacts. This was not proportionate given the long delay, the time and trouble caused to the resident in chasing this up, and for the cumulative impacts the other complaint handling failures we identified. We have therefore awarded more compensation to bring it in line with the amounts our remedies guidance recommends for longer lasting impacts (between £100-£600).

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The standard of the landlord’s records was reasonable. It would have been better though if it had a record of any questions and answers posed to the officer complained about for completeness.

Communication

21. We saw no evidence of any formal acknowledgement letters for the resident’s complaint and escalation. Apart from being part of the published process, acknowledgements are essential for effective communication about a complaint. They both confirm to a resident that their concerns will be dealt with and when. They show that a landlord has understood the nature of the complaint and give the resident the opportunity to correct it if needed. The landlord should ensure it always provides and keeps a record of complaint acknowledgements.