Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (202232665)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232665

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council

18 February 2025

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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Concerns about staff conduct.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom semi-detached house. She holds a secure tenancy with a local council landlord. The tenancy started on 15 June 2012. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 25 May 2022 the resident reported concerns about her neighbour. She said that:
1. She could hear a child crying continuously for several hours at a time.
2. The neighbour had run an electric cable along the fence to a shed at the bottom of the garden.
3. The neighbour was constantly drilling, and cracks had appeared in her house.
The resident raised the following concerns about her neighbour between 4 July 2022 and 29 December 2022 when she submitted a stage 1 complaint:
1. They had installed spikes on the garden wall.
2. They had damaged her conservatory window.
3. They had positioned video surveillance (CCTV) toward her car.
4. They were neglecting their child.
5. They were filming her child.
6. They had used language that she considered racist.
In her stage 1 complaint the resident complained about:
1. The landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB.
2. The landlord’s behaviour, which she described as discriminatory and its failure to reassign a different housing officer to investigate her reports of ASB.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 15 February 2023. In its response the landlord:
1. Apologised for the time it had taken to respond to the complaint.
2. Acknowledged the content and tone of the language used by one of its housing officers in a letter to the resident was condescending, accusatory and patronising. The landlord apologised for this.
3. Did not agree that the behaviour of one of its officers was discriminatory.
4. Explained why it did not initially reassign a new housing officer to her case. But acknowledged that it had recently done so.
5. Said it was satisfied that her reports of ASB had been properly investigated.
The resident escalated her complaint on 17 February 2023. As part of her escalated complaint the resident said:
1. The landlord had failed to investigate her report of her neighbour spraying chemicals at her cat.
2. The landlord had failed to investigate her report that her neighbour had thrown a stone at her conservatory.
3. She was unhappy that the landlord had asked her to remove her CCTV.
4. Disappointed that the landlord failed to take action against her neighbour.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 9 May 2023 it:
1. Apologised for its delay responding to the complaint.
2. Agreed with the findings of the stage 1 response.
3. Apologised for its delay in reassigning a different housing officer and made an offer of £200 compensation for this.
4. Responded to each of the resident’s additional questions, which she raised in an email to the landlord on 23 March 2023.
5. Explained that it found no evidence to support action against her neighbour.

Post internal complaints process

In recent communication with us the resident raised concerns that ASB is ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Our role is to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB. We cannot establish if a party is responsible for ASB. This means our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of landlord in the context of its relevant policies, as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
In her communication with us the resident referred to incidents of ASB which happened after the landlord’s final response on 9 May 2023. We can only investigate complaints that the landlord has had an opportunity to respond to. Consequently, we will only consider the landlord’s handling of the events that were the subject of the complaint raised on 29 December 2022, and which concluded with the landlord’s final response on 9 May 2023.
The resident said the landlord had discriminated against her. We cannot determine whether discrimination or preferential treatment has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s reports about staff conduct and if the landlord handled the resident’s complaint in line with its policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB.

The landlords ASB procedure requires the landlord to complete a nuisance report form for all reports of nuisance. This includes reports of children crying. As part of the nuisance report form the landlord must also complete an initial victim vulnerability matrix, assess the severity level of ASB and react accordingly. There are 4 levels of severity, with level 1 being the highest. The procedure states that the landlord does not need to complete a nuisance form for subsequent reports in an existing case.
When the resident reported concerns about the noise from her neighbour’s property, the landlord completed a nuisance report form and completed an initial victim assessment matrix.
The landlord assessed the ASB as a level 3, which is defined in the landlord’s procedures as neighbour disputes or a one-off incident. According to its procedure a one-off incident at this level may not need investigating, but the landlord may record the incident for future reference.
The landlord’s procedure sets out the types of behaviour it does not consider as ASB. This includes residents carrying out DIY or children crying. The landlord recorded the resident’s report and completed the appropriate assessments. The landlord followed its procedure and acted appropriately at that time in responding to the resident’s report of nuisance.
Following the resident’s report of harassment and intimidation on 4 July 2022 the landlord changed the ASB level to a level 2. Within 2 days of her report, it also sent her diary sheets to complete and return by 1 August 2022 and referred the parties for mediation. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the neighbour’s use of spikes on a fence as a cat deterrent and said that it could ask a surveyor to inspect the fence and the electric cable. This was an appropriate response.
However, it took the landlord until 2 November 2022 to inspect the fence and positioning of the spikes. This was 84 working days after the landlord proposed a surveyors visit. While the landlord did not specify a timescale to the resident, given this formed part of her initial concern it was unreasonable that it took the landlord 84 working days to inspect the property.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it should agree an action plan within 5 working days. We have not seen any evidence of a landlord action plan. This was not appropriate.
The resident alleged that the neighbour had broken her conservatory window, and that they had positioned their CCTV on her car. The landlord arranged for an operative to attend to fix the window and said it would speak to the neighbour about the CCTV. This was an appropriate response.
In an email exchange between the resident and the landlord on 27 July 2022 the resident repeated her concerns about the neighbour’s behaviour and added that they were shouting and watching her from the window. She said that she had not completed the diary sheets, and asked the landlord when it would inspect the fence.
Although it is not clear to us from the evidence provided when mediation took place, evidence showed that it had concluded by 22 August 2022 without a resolution.
On 10 September 2022 the resident reported that the neighbour had parked their car very close to hers and used language that she considered racist. She told the landlord that because of its handling of her reports of ASB she did not want it to investigate her report of racial harassment or the damage to her conservatory. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s report and explained that it had recorded the reported incidents. The landlord completed a victim vulnerability assessment. This was appropriate.
In response to an email from the police on 19 September 2022 the landlord explained that it was aware of the situation between the resident and the neighbour and that it had offered to speak with the neighbour about the alleged incident. It was appropriate that the landlord discussed the incident with the police as this is listed in its ASB policy as one of the actions the landlord could take to resolve the situation.
In a meeting with the landlord on 28 September 2022 the resident explained she felt intimidated by the neighbour parking close to her car, and said that she suffered with anxiety.
The resident reported further incidents of harassment on 24 November and 27 November 2022, this included the neighbour throwing pebbles at her conservatory, parking their car close to hers, and the use of an alleged chemical spray. Additionally, she said that the neighbour had not removed the spikes from the front wall.
In response the landlord suggested the resident could park her car on the other side of the road. It explained it could not take action against the neighbour in respect of the parking dispute. But told the resident if the police had evidence of harassment, it could be shared with the landlord. The landlord said the conservatory window had been repaired. However, it could not test the glass for evidence such as DNA to prove or disprove how it had broken. The landlord told the resident it had spoken with another neighbour about the alleged chemical spray, but there was no evidence that it had been sprayed on the resident’s wall. Also, it said that it could not confirm that the spray bottle contained a harmful substance. The landlord’s response was appropriate.
Additionally, the landlord was aware that the police had investigated the report of racial harassment and were not taking any further action. It asked the resident if she wanted the landlord to investigate it. While it was reasonable of the landlord to re-propose its offer to investigate the incident, the police had already investigated and closed the case without action. The landlord would therefore have been limited in the action it could take and should have made this clear to the resident at that time, to manage her expectations.
In an email to the landlord on 7 December 2022 the resident asked the landlord to investigate her report of racial harassment under its ASB policy.
The landlord’s ASB procedure categorises cases involving racial harassment as level 1 and states that its ASB team will contact the resident within 24 hours. Additionally, it will agree an action plan within 48 hours.
A landlord internal email showed that the landlord suggested speaking with the neighbour regarding the allegations and issuing a breach of tenancy warning. It said that once it had issued the warning, the ASB team could deal with any further incidents. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord spoke with the resident or issued a warning letter. This was not appropriate.
There is no evidence that the information was passed to the ASB team or that the landlord agreed an action plan. This was not appropriate.
Between the date the resident submitted her stage 1 complaint and the date of the landlord’s response, the resident reported further incidents of harassment, which included the neighbour making rude gestures and noise disturbance.
Evidence showed that the landlord listened to noise recordings from the noise app. It said that it could hear a baby crying, but did not consider this to be ASB. Evidence also showed that the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s further reports of nuisance. This included:
1. Speaking to the neighbour about the alleged racial harassment and warning them about the impact on their tenancy.
2. Speaking with the police about the parking disagreement.
3. Speaking with the neighbour about an incident involving the resident’s cat.
In its stage 1 response on 15 February 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had reviewed the information regarding her ASB complaint and was satisfied that it had cooperated with the police to investigate her reports of nuisance. It said:
1. It was unable to take any action in respect of the neighbour parking in front of her house.
2. It could not test the broken conservatory window for DNA to establish how it broke.
3. It could only give permission for the resident to install CCTV if it were pointing on her own property.
4. It would speak to the neighbours about them trespassing on the resident’s property.
The resident escalated her complaint on 23 March 2023 and raised further issues as part of this.
The landlord’s response to the complaint on 9 May 2023 included a comprehensive report detailing the findings of its stage 2 investigation. It responded fully to each of the resident’s points and demonstrated the action it had taken following each report of ASB. It explained that it was satisfied it had investigated all ASB reports and that it spoke with the resident’s neighbour regarding the alleged racial harassment but acknowledged that it did not complete a formal interview.
In situations like this where relations between neighbours are strained it is important that the landlord fully understands the issue from both parties. The landlord’s notes showed that it discussed the situation with both parties and tried to find a solution to the issue through mediation. However, the landlord did not have a clear action plan. Consequently, it failed to clearly explain to the resident the action it could take in response to her reports of nuisance and racial harassment. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord dealt with the resident’s report of noise nuisance appropriately. It listened to the recordings made on the noise app and clearly explained to the resident why it could not take action.
Additionally, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s other reports through mediation, contact with the police and speaking with the neighbour directly.
However, as set out in our Spotlight report on noise, the landlord should consider introducing a proactive neighbourhood management policy. This is separate from an ASB policy, with options for maintaining good relationships and a matrix to assess appropriate options. This will provide an alternative to its ASB policy when dealing with neighbour disputes.
The landlord was limited in the action it could take in respect of the resident’s report of racial harassment. However, it told the resident it would investigate the incident under its ASB policy and therefore should have done so. Its failure to follow its ASB procedure in respect of the report of racial harassment was not appropriate. Additionally, the landlord should have better managed the resident’s expectations regarding any action it could take. The landlord’s failure to follow its ASB procedure caused inconvenience to the resident who did not know how her report would be investigated or the timescale for this. We therefore find a service failure in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
In considering an offer of compensation we refer to our remedies guidance which the landlord has explained to us it uses when determining compensation. We consider £100 a proportionate amount of compensation for a finding of service failure and the inconvenience experienced by the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

The landlord wrote to the resident and her neighbour on 25 August 2022 in response to the ongoing reports of nuisance. Following on from this letter the resident said she did not want the housing officer to deal with her ASB case because she did not think he was acting impartially.
In her stage 1 complaint the resident said the housing officer had discriminated against her. She said she had asked for him not to be involved in her ASB case, but this request was ignored by the landlord.
The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns but did not uphold her complaint that the landlord had discriminated against her. However, it did acknowledge the tone of the letter sent on 25 August 2022 was condescending, accusatory and patronising and apologised for this. This was appropriate.
In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged the resident was disappointed the landlord did not immediately reassign a different housing officer to investigate her reports of ASB. It explained it did not have the capacity to change housing officers for particular jobs. However, it said it did arrange for another officer to respond to most of her correspondence.
The landlord went further in its stage 2 response and acknowledged it should have assigned a different housing officer to her case. It apologised that it failed to do this and made an offer of £200 for the inconvenience this caused.
We apply the following principles when considering if redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint.
The landlord apologised to the resident for the tone of the letter and the impact this had on her. It acknowledged that it should have assigned a different housing officer to her case, and made an offer of compensation proportionate to the failings identified. Although it did not immediately assign a different housing officer to deal with the resident’s complaint, it did do so during the complaint process. Therefore demonstrating that it had learned from its failing. Having carefully considered the evidence available, we are satisfied that had the landlord not taken responsibility and apologised for its failings we would have found a service failure for its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. We therefore find reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
However, we will make a recommendation for the landlord to self- assess against our spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. As set out in its self– assessment of the complaint handling code (the Code) published in 2023, it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord failed to respond within these timescales at each stage of the complaints process.
It took the landlord 34 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 response and 54 working days to respond at stage 2 of its complaints process. This was not appropriate.
The landlord provided a full and concise response to the complaint at stage 2. This was appropriate.
Additionally, it apologised for the delays, and kept the resident updated during the stage 2 process. This was appropriate. However, it did not demonstrate that it had learned from its failings.
The delays far exceeded the published timescales and prevented the resident from reaching a conclusion to her complaint. Therefore, causing her an inconvenience. Consequently, we find a service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling.
In considering an offer of compensation we have referred to our remedies guidance and consider an offer of compensation of £100 a proportionate amount for the service failure identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme we find a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB.
2. Complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme we find reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report we order the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £400 compensation, which includes:
  1. £200 previously offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response.
  2. £100 for the inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s failure to follow its ASB procedure.
  3. £100 for the inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord delays in responding to her complaint.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide refresher training to staff on the requirements of its complaints policy and the Code, including but not limited to:
  1. The timelines for acknowledging and responding to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints.
  2. The requirement to provide specific information to residents in writing at the completion of each stage.
  3. What constitutes a complaint resolution.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales specified.

Recommendations

Within 8 weeks of the date of this report it is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights and consider the recommendations.
2. Arrange for its housing staff to complete our eLearning module on the same topic.
The resident has recently raised concerns about ongoing ASB. We recommend that the landlord responds to any reports in line with its ASB policy and takes lessons learned from this investigation.