Bristol City Council (202336708)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336708

Bristol City Council

30 August 2024

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:
1. The resident’s concerns about temporary accommodation and rehousing options offered to her, following a fire at the property.
2. The ending of the resident’s tenancy.
3. The resident’s concerns about fly-tipping in the garden.
4. The resident’s request to access her property following a fire at the property.
5. The associated complaint, including the resident’s request for compensation.

Background

The resident had a secure tenancy with the landlord which began on 15 February 2010 and ended on 18 December 2023. The property was a 3-bedroom house. The resident lived at the property with her children. The landlord said its records show the resident has a long-term illness.
On 13 January 2023, the resident and her family moved into temporary accommodation due to anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’) which included threats of violence towards the household. This was following the involvement of the council’s homelessness department.
On 8 September 2023, there was a fire at the property which caused substantial damage to the property and the resident’s belongings.
On 2 October 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. she had been living in temporary accommodation due to threats to her and her family’s lives.
2. while the property was unoccupied, people had been fly-tipping in her garden. The resident said she had complained about this, but the landlord had not removed it.
3. the rubbish contributed to the cause of the fire, as the perpetrators used it to set the property alight.
4. her personal belongings had been damaged in the fire. The resident the landlord would not support her with replacing her damaged belongings and she did not have contents insurance.
5. she was unable to access the property to see if she could salvage any sentimental items.
On 10 October 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It explained:
1. there had been delays in dealing with the matter and delays in the resident accessing the property. The landlord said the delays in accessing the property were due to issues with a security door. The landlord said once it had access to the security door, it would contact the resident to arrange access to the property.
2. it would discuss possible options to access funds to replace the resident’s damaged belongings. The landlord said it would support any referrals for replacement goods or property.
3. it tried to clear the fly-tipped rubbish, but its contractor had been affected by funding and had not completed the work. The landlord said it had limited powers to ensure the contractor completed the work.
On 26 October 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The resident said the landlord had not contacted her about additional support.
On 20 November 2023, the resident issued the landlord a Notice to Quit, which was a notice period for the tenancy to end.
On 30 November 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It explained:
1. it had offered the resident support while she was living in the property. The landlord explained when the resident moved into temporary accommodation, she transferred into the remit of the homeless service.
2. there was a further delay in the resident accessing the property due to staff illness and severe weather, which prevented an officer from providing access to the property.
3. since 28 November 2023, the resident has accessed the property 3 times to retrieve her belongings.
4. it had referred the resident to a tenancy support service.
5. the resident had given notice on the property. The landlord said its estates team could not support the resident until she took up another tenancy with the local authority.
6. the homeless service would support the resident with accessing white goods once she has secured a new tenancy.
7. it upheld the resident’s complaint about delays in accessing the property, but it did not agree that its support to the resident was lacking.
On 18 December 2023, the resident’s tenancy ended.
In referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports about fly tipping, which she feels contributed towards the severity of the fire.
2. she felt pressured by the landlord to end the tenancy.
3. she is residing in temporary accommodation and is experiencing financial hardship.
4. she feels the landlord has not supported her or helped her with the financial cost of her damaged belongings.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The resident and her family are residing in temporary accommodation. The resident said she is experiencing financial hardship in temporary accommodation. The resident said she is bidding for properties, but she is unhappy with the level of support from the local authority in finding alternative and permanent accommodation. The resident also said she feels she is being “forced” into private rented accommodation.
Paragraph 41.d of the Scheme states:“41. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion d. concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease.”
The resident’s landlord was also the council. Councils are only required to be members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme for their management of social housing and long leases, not actions by a council which relate to the management of social housing or long leases. For example, homelessness duties are obligations set out by Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and are owed to all citizens of a borough who make an application to a council. It is therefore a wider public duty. The suitability of accommodation because of affordability is not the management of social housing or a long lease. Similarly, the obligation on the homelessness department to secure and protect the resident’s household goods and contents under s.211 of the Housing Act 1996, is a statutory duty on the council as a local authority and not as a social landlord.
This means the complaints about the council’s handling of the temporary accommodation provided by the homelessness department, bidding, the protection of her household goods and contents and that the resident may have to take up a property in the private rented sector, are not matters that the Housing Ombudsman has any jurisdiction to investigate. The resident may complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman about these issues.
The resident said she felt pressured to give up her tenancy. The resident gave the landlord a Notice to Quit on 20 November 2023. The resident said the landlord had contacted her several times asking her to relinquish her tenancy.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states:“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made before having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
The resident did not raise this issue as part of her complaint, or in her escalation request on 26 October 2023. In the interest of fairness, the Ombudsman is unable to consider this element of the resident’s complaint because it was not raised during the complaints process. This is because the landlord should have a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns before the involvement of the Ombudsman. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord and progress this as a new formal complaint if required.
Similarly, the resident explained that she was residing in temporary accommodation due to ongoing ASB. However, the resident’s complaint did not refer to the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the acts of ASB in of themselves as part of the investigation under paragraph 42.a of the Scheme.

Scope of the complaint

The Ombudsman has only investigated the matters specified in paragraph 1(c)-(e) above.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fly tipping in the garden of the property

The resident was not occupying the property at the time of the fire. The resident was residing in temporary accommodation due to ASB. However, the tenancy was still ‘live’. The resident said the fly-tipped rubbish contributed to the severity of the fire. The resident said that the property had shutters on the doors and windows, and had the rubbish not been in the garden, the perpetrators would not have been able to set fire to it.
It is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine if the fly-tipped rubbish caused or contributed to the severity of the fire without a forensic fire investigation report. The Ombudsman has therefore considered whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the fly-tipped rubbish was reasonable or not.
The landlord has not provided a full copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement. The landlord’s repairs policy states residents are responsible for maintaining gardens. However, the policy does not explain what the term “maintaining” refers to or the obligations of the resident in relation to this.
The landlord’s online policy states it will aim to clear fly-tipping within 3 working days from “council owned land, public highways and public footpaths”. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will work with its neighbourhood enforcement team where there is evidence of an offender fly-tipping, and its estates management team to arrange clearance of the fly-tipped rubbish.
The landlord’s records suggest that it was aware of fly-tipped rubbish in the garden from July 2023. The landlord’s estate management team said the landlord needed to contact the waste removal contractor as per its “waste on land process”. The resident’s neighbours reported further fly-tipped rubbish around the property on 1 September 2023.
The resident said she contacted the landlord several times about the fly-tipped rubbish in the garden. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that it had requested its contractor to remove the fly-tipped rubbish. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the resident requested removal of the rubbish, as the landlord agreed to do this. However, it is not clear when the resident first requested the landlord to remove the rubbish from the garden.
The landlord has not provided appropriate details, records, or correspondence with the resident regarding the rubbish collection. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to assess:
1. when the resident first requested removal of the rubbish.
2. when the landlord responded to the resident’s request.
3. whether the landlord continued to liaise with the neighbourhood enforcement team or estates management team, in accordance with its policy.
4. whether the rubbish was removed within a reasonable time.
5. whether the landlord appropriately recorded the resident’s reports of fly-tipping, and whether it monitored this in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures.
The Ombudsman has therefore been unable to assess whether the landlord’s response was reasonable. This was a failing by the landlord in its record keeping. It is best practice for landlords to appropriately record information including any reports of repairs, agreed actions or further issues raised by the resident. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The evidence suggests that the landlord contacted the contractor on 4 September 2023 to chase the rubbish collection. However, this was 2 months after the landlord was aware of reports of fly-tipped rubbish around the property. The landlord has not provided an explanation for the delay, or why it did not contact the waste management contractor sooner. This was not appropriate.
The landlord emailed the resident on 15 September 2023 and said the contractor had not collected the rubbish due to delays and funding/budgeting issues. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there may have been factors outside of the landlord’s control. However, there is no evidence that the landlord chased the rubbish collection again with its contractor. There is also no evidence that the subsequent delays were communicated with the resident prior to 15 September 2023, including any reasons why the contractor had not collected the rubbish. This was not appropriate and was a failure in the landlord’s service to the resident.
The Ombudsman considers there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint because the landlord failed to demonstrate it acted in accordance with the relevant policies or that it communicated its delays to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to access the property following a fire

The resident said she was unhappy that there were delays in her accessing the property, following a fire at the property on 8 September 2023.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in providing access to the property. The landlord said this was due to issues with a security door. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said there had been further delays in the resident accessing the property due to staff illness and severe weather, which prevented an officer from providing access to the property.
It is not clear when the resident was given access to the property. This was further evidence of poor record keeping. However, the landlord said in its stage 2 response that by 28 November 2023, the resident had visited the property 3 times to retrieve items.
While the landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that there had been delays in the resident accessing the property, it did not fully recognise the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident and her family. Further, there is no evidence that the landlord regularly communicated with the resident about the delays or provided progress reports. This was not appropriate.
The landlord also failed to offer any definitive timescales to the resident in its stage 1 response about accessing the property, which left her concerns unresolved and caused uncertainty. This was not appropriate and was a failure in the landlord’s service to the resident.
The resident explained that she required access to the property to try and salvage any sentimental items. The landlord did not recognise this in its complaint responses or the impact on the resident caused by the delays. While the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint about delays in accessing the property, it did not offer any compensation for the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident.
The Ombudsman considers there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint because the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident about access to the property and failed to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint including the resident’s request for compensation

The Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. Landlords should respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 2 October 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 10 October 2023. This was 6 working days later. The landlord’s response time was reasonable and in line with the Code.
The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged that there were delays in the resident being able to access the property. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. However, it did not provide a timescale for when the resident could access the property and it did not recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays.
Section 7 of the Code sets out expectations regarding the effective resolution of complaints. The Code states where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. While the landlord acknowledged the delays to the resident, it did not provide a full apology to the resident for the delays or consider any financial remedy for the distress and inconvenience caused. This was a failure to act in accordance with the Code to put things right.
The resident has requested compensation for her damaged belongings because of the fire. The resident explained that the issue has had a significant impact on her and her family. The Ombudsman recognises that this is an extremely difficult situation for the resident as many of her personal possessions, which held sentimental value, cannot be replaced.
On 2 October 2023, the landlord said it would refer the resident’s request to its insurance services. The Ombudsman considers the landlord is entitled to rely on its insurance indemnifier in the circumstances. However, it is unclear if the resident has submitted a claim to the landlord’s insurer, or if the insurer has made a decision regarding the resident’s claim. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as it can only consider the actions of the landlord.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would discuss possible options to access funds to replace the resident’s damaged belongings. The landlord said it would support any referrals for replacement goods or property. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord has discussed possible options with the resident, or that it has made any referrals for replacement goods or property. This was a failure to demonstrate it had carried out the actions it said it would in its complaint responses.
The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the damage to her belongings, including whether a claim is being considered by its insurer. The landlord must also discuss possible options with the resident to access funds to replace the belongings and make any referrals where necessary, as agreed in its complaint responses.
For the reasons noted above, the Ombudsman considers there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the resident’s request for compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about temporary accommodation and rehousing options offered to her, following a fire at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the landlord’s handling of the ending of the resident’s tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fly-tipping in the garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the resident’s request to access the property following a fire at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint, including her request for compensation.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. provide an apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £600, broken down as follows:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her reports about fly tipping.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in the resident accessing the property.
  3. £100 for the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The compensation must be paid directly to the resident.

contact the resident to discuss the damage to her belongings, including how she can make a claim or whether a claim is being considered by its insurer. The landlord must also discuss possible options to access funds to replace the belongings and make any referrals where necessary.