Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (202308851)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308851

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council

23 May 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The level of support offered by the landlord at the beginning of the resident’s tenancy. 
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and counter allegations made against her.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a 1-bedroom flat. The resident has several health conditions. She experienced homelessness prior to moving into the property.
3. The resident raised a complaint on 27 April 2023 as she said the landlord had failed to resolve issues with her neighbour and it was impacting her health and wellbeing. She sent a witness statement outlining various issues including her neighbour following her, items stolen from the communal area and outside her property, and sleep deprivation due to noise disturbance. She also said the landlord had not provided floating support or a £300 furniture grant as offered. She raised further concerns on 9 May 2023 as she had received an ASB warning from the landlord, and she asked to arrange a meeting to appeal it.
4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 10 May 2024, it said it had offered the resident several appointments to discuss her concerns regarding her neighbours. It also stated the resident had not provided any evidence to support the allegations about her neighbour. It had sent her a warning letter as she had breached the tenancy agreement by emailing her neighbour’s employer. It said it had been unable to offer the £300 furniture grant as the resident did not engage with the application process. It maintained its position at stage 2 as it said the resident had not provided any additional information.
5. The resident made a further complaint on 21 August 2023, in which she raised numerous concerns about the level of support offered by the landlord and said it had not acted in her best interests. She said:
   1. The sign-up was inadequate. The landlord did not show her where the meters were, and it had not paid the previous energy bills. There were also painters in the flat during her sign-up appointment. The landlord failed to provide floating support or support her to transition into the property from homelessness.
   2. The area had a drug and alcohol problem and there had been an attempted break-in at her property. The landlord had failed to provide safeguarding or protect her from ASB. The ASB allegation against her was unfounded and she asked the landlord to remove the warning letter from her file.
   3. The landlord had told the resident the bench she installed in the communal garden was a fire hazard, 6 months after providing verbal permission. Her neighbour had also complained about her hanging baskets and composter.
   4. The landlord had blocked her email address and was not responding to correspondence and had not complied with her request not to contact her. It also failed to complete her subject access request (SAR).
   5. The landlord breached her human rights by not allowing her to litter pick. It was part of her management plan for her health issues.
   6. As an outcome to the complaint she wanted an apology, the landlord to be retrained in effective communication, the ASB warning to be removed from her file, an internal investigation into transparency, honesty, and lessons learned, compensation for the impact on her health, a new Housing Officer, one rule for all tenants, the SAR report, and to be able to pick litter freely.
6. In its stage 1 response on 21 August 2023, the landlord said:
   1. It apologised it had not applied the stain block prior to the sign-up process. It took meter readings during the void period and paid the appropriate gas bill. It advised the resident to contact her utility supplier if she had any further concerns. The resident had signed to confirm it showed her the meter locations during sign-up.
   2. It supported the resident prior to her tenancy between December 2021 and 27 October 2022. It asked her to provide further detail on how the support was inadequate. It allocated a support officer on 2 November 2022, as the resident had requested support with utilities and white goods. It supported her with universal credit, council tax support, and a food bank voucher. It acknowledged it may have been unclear which team were able to support her with specific issues and it was unclear whether it made all reasonable attempts to fully support her. It offered additional time with the support officer. It apologised if she felt it had not appropriately dealt with her concerns.
   3. It advised the resident to report any drug and alcohol issues and ASB to it and the police. It asked for further details so it could put in measures to ensure her safety. It understood the attempted break in was upsetting and it took appropriate action by changing the lock the same day. It addressed her concerns about counter allegations in a previous complaint and it held the records in line with its data retention policy.
   4. It sent a fire hazard letter on 8 August 2023 to all residents advising the bench needed to be removed. The resident should have sought permission to make adaptations to the communal garden.
   5. It could not find any evidence that her emails had been blocked and had no evidence to confirm the resident’s request for no contact. It asked for a copy of her request to further investigate the matter. The resident first notified it of the SAR request in her complaint, and it was handling it in the relevant timeframes.
   6. It approved of the resident’s litter picking but asked her not to litter pick at other residents’ door entrances or the grounds of other communal flat blocks.
   7. In relation to her requested outcomes, it said its Housing Officers worked on geographical patches and so it could not uphold her request for a change of Housing Officer. All its staff members completed equality, diversity, and inclusion training at induction. Financial compensation was not appropriate.
7. The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 12 October 2023 as she disputed that the landlord had offered sufficient support. She did not want to engage with her Housing Officer and said she would seek support from an advocate. In its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated that it had adequately dealt with most issues raised in her complaint but said there was “uncertainty if all reasonable attempts were made to identify the help that you may have required to support you fully at the start of your tenancy”.
8. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she did not think the landlord had offered sufficient support at the beginning of her tenancy and had not taken accountability for failing to offer the furniture grant. She was concerned with the ASB issues in the area and dissatisfied that the landlord had issued an ASB warning to her. She reiterated the desired outcomes that she raised in her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident told the Service that the landlord’s treatment of her at the beginning of her tenancy had a significant impact on her mental health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health.
10. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.
11. Part of the resident’s complaint relates to the landlord’s treatment of her while she was experiencing homelessness and its handling of her application for a property. While the Service can consider local authorities in its capacity as a landlord, we are unable to consider other functions it performs. This includes its assessment of the resident’s application for housing, in its capacity as a local authority.
12. As a result, the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). In line with paragraph 42j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”. If the resident remains dissatisfied, she should pursue the matter with the LGSCO.
13. The resident raised concerns to the Service about new ASB issues, that the previous tenant’s belongings were still in the property when she moved in, and the landlord’s handling of her adaptation requests. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. This is in line with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states we may not consider complaints that “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.

The level of support offered by the landlord at the beginning of the resident’s tenancy

14. The resident said in her complaint that the landlord did not offer a suitable level of support at the beginning of her tenancy. In the resident’s assessment of needs form completed on 20 October 2022, she disclosed to the landlord that she had poor mental health and several physical health issues. She also had a history of homelessness and domestic violence. She needed support setting up utilities, managing post, and applying for benefits. The landlord also noted the resident asked for support obtaining grants for furniture. As such, the landlord should have taken reasonable steps to accommodate her requests and managed her expectations regarding the support it could offer. Landlords should consider residents’ specific needs and requirements to ensure they offer a suitable service.
15. The landlord said it helped the resident with the housing element of universal credit and to apply for council tax support. It said the resident confirmed she was happy to complete her Personal Independence Payment (PIP) application without the landlord’s support. This was reasonable as it agreed to provide such support at sign-up.
16. The resident asked for support obtaining grants for furniture and white goods. Understandably, the resident would require quick support as she had transitioned from homelessness and may not have had essential items. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord assessed the urgency of her case as “red”, so it would provide her with priority support. In its complaint response the landlord said it was unable to offer the resident the furniture grant as she did not engage with the application process and it was unable to establish her financial situation. 
17. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord took reasonable steps to contact the resident and explain the application process. It allocated a support officer on 2 November 2022 and visited the resident’s property on 10 November 2022, but she was not in. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to confirm it notified the resident of the appointment, so it is unclear whether it gave her a reasonable opportunity to provide access.
18. The landlord said it attempted to call the resident on numerous occasions. It subsequently appeared to be uncertain about whether it had the resident’s correct phone number and the resident had indicated she did not have phone credit to call the landlord back. While this caused delays in progressing the resident’s grant application, the landlord did not become aware of the issues until the resident contacted it on 19 December 2022. It told the resident the following day it had completed the grant application, but there was a backlog. It is not clear whether it gave the resident a further opportunity to engage with the application process once the landlord identified it had the incorrect contact number, so she may have missed the opportunity to provide the required information.
19. In her complaint, the resident said the sign-up was inadequate as contractors were still working in the flat, the previous energy bills had not been paid, and she was not shown where the meters were. The landlord said it took meter readings at the start and end of the void process, sent them to the gas supplier, and appropriately covered the void period. It told the resident she could dispute any erroneous charges directly with her energy supplier by sending her tenancy agreement if it had charged her for energy usage prior to her tenancy. As such, the landlord demonstrated it took appropriate steps to pay the energy bill during the voids period and it provided the correct advice regarding any incorrect charges.
20. The sign-up appointment form on 26 October 2022 states that the landlord showed the resident the meter location, which both parties signed to confirm. It may have been helpful for the landlord to have re-offered to show her the meter location when she raised her concerns in her complaint.
21. The landlord apologised that a contractor attended to apply stain block to the lounge wall on the day of the resident’s sign-up. Landlords should ensure they complete all necessary works identified in the void process prior to the resident moving into the property. In this case, it did not impact her use of the property as it completed the work on the sign-up appointment on 26 October 2022 and her tenancy commenced on 31 October 2022. Nonetheless, it was reasonable that the landlord apologised as it may have made the resident uncomfortable by completing the works while she was present.
22. In view of the evidence, the landlord largely took reasonable steps to provide the resident with sufficient support. It recognised and apologised that it may have been unclear which team was able to support her with certain issues or whether it had taken all reasonable attempts to fully support her. It was therefore reasonable that it offered additional time with her support officer to review whether further support was required. This would allow her further opportunities to gain the necessary support, mitigating the impact of the communication issues caused due to the incorrect contact number.
23. As an outcome of the complaint the resident wanted the landlord to re-train its staff members in effective communication, an apology, a new Housing Officer, and compensation for the impact on her health. She also wanted the landlord to complete an internal investigation into transparency and honesty and identify any lessons learned. The landlord confirmed that its staff members receive equality, diversity, and inclusion training and there is no evidence of a failing that would indicate that further training is required. Similarly, it would not be necessary for it to carry out an internal investigation as it took appropriate steps to identify and remedy its shortcomings in communication within its complaint response. It is recognised that the landlord offered a further apology in its final complaint response, which the resident said she had not received, so a recommendation has been made to fulfil this action. As discussed above, the Ombudsman is not suitably equipped to assess the resident’s request for compensation for the impact on her health.
24. The landlord said its Housing Officers work on geographical patches, and it would be difficult to manage their duties if they were responsible for tenancies outside of their area. The landlord has a responsibility to provide a suitable service to all its residents and it should manage its staff appropriately to achieve it, so its response was reasonable. However, it may have been helpful for the landlord to have considered providing an alternative housing officer as a contact, rather than to complete any visits to the resident’s property, if this would improve the landlord – tenant relationship.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and counter allegations made against her

25. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as “behaviour by residents, members of their household or visitors to their property which causes annoyance, nuisance or disturbance to anyone in the area. It outlines the early informal investigation steps it can take to resolve ASB including verbal and written warnings, meetings, mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts, and restorative justice solutions. It can also offer support, refer to partner agencies, and consider legal actions. It will gather evidence to determine the most appropriate course of action.
26. The landlord offered to visit the resident’s property on 18 April 2023 as it had received an allegation of ASB. It told the Service that the resident declined the visit. Nonetheless, it was reasonable that it gave the resident the opportunity to discuss the allegations. It subsequently issued an ASB warning to the resident on 27 April 2023 as the police had provided evidence that the resident had contacted her neighbour’s work. The landlord has a duty to all residents to ensure that they are free from harassment, and it should take steps to manage reports of ASB. Issuing the warning letter was an appropriate and proportionate action to take, in line with its ASB policy, in view of the available evidence.
27. The warning letter also said the resident was litter picking in unauthorised areas, including property entrances and a building site. The landlord has demonstrated it had sufficient evidence to raise such concerns. It was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident not to litter pick in areas which might cause privacy concerns or safety issues.
28. It is recognised that the resident feels litter picking and gardening is beneficial to her mental health, and it is part of her clinical management plan. The landlord should not unreasonably prevent her from completing such activities. Nonetheless, it has to ensure that she complies with relevant health and safety obligations, and the activities do not cause any detriment to other residents. The resident should also comply with any relevant policies and guidelines, including to make improvements. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to suggest that the landlord has intervened with the resident’s ability to litter pick or garden, other than to uphold its other responsibilities.
29. The resident asked to appeal the warning letter. The landlord said the warning would remain in place due to the information received by the police, but if the Independent Police Complaints Commission found in her favour, it would reassess the matter. This was reasonable as the landlord demonstrated it had taken an evidence-based approach and would reevaluate any new evidence. It also said it had offered several appointments to discuss the resident’s concerns.
30. The resident raised concerns with the safety of the area, due to drug and alcohol problems and said she felt unsafe. There is no evidence that she reported this to the landlord prior to her complaint, so it did not have the opportunity to investigate the issues at an earlier date. It was therefore appropriate that it in its complaint response it asked for further detail so it could investigate the issues. It also told her to inform it and the police if she felt exploited so it could put in place measures to promote her safety and complete a safeguarding referral if necessary.
31. The landlord explained that its ASB process involves contacting all parties and issuing diary sheets, so it appropriately managed her expectations regarding the steps required to progress the matter. There is no evidence that the resident provided specific details of any ASB issues to the landlord or the police between her first complaint on 9 May 2023 and her second complaint on 21 August 2023. The resident had referred the matter to the courts, which the landlord did not have involvement with, but the case was dismissed. As such, there was insufficient evidence for the landlord to further investigate her concerns.
32. The resident has provided diary sheets to the Service, but there is no evidence to confirm whether she sent copies to the landlord. As a result, it does not appear that it had the opportunity to consider the information. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to give the resident a further opportunity to provide evidence of the reported ASB issues. It should assess the evidence and consider whether it should take any action in line with its ASB policy.
33. The resident also reported an attempted break-in, which would clearly have caused her significant distress. The landlord acted appropriately in response to her report as it changed the front door lock the same day it received notification from the police, to ensure the property was secure. The resident reported the matter to the police, and they would be suitably equipped the further investigate the matter, rather than the landlord.
34. As an outcome of the complaint, the resident asked for the landlord to have “one rule for all tenants”. The Service has not seen evidence that the landlord has treated the resident unfavourably or applied rules differently.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52, there was no maladministration in the level of support offered by the landlord at the beginning of the resident’s tenancy. 
36. In accordance with paragraph 52, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and counter allegations made against her.

Recommendations

37. It is recommended that the landlord offers a further apology, as offered in its stage 2 response.
38. The landlord should consider whether it can offer an alternative Housing Officer as a direct contact point to improve the landlord-tenant relationship.
39. The landlord should give the resident another opportunity to provide evidence of the reported ASB issues and consider whether it should take any actions in line with its ASB policy.