Bristol City Council (202302794)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302794

Bristol City Council

28 October 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about dogs.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. Concerns about window cleaning.
This report has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder who lives in a flat situated on the sixth floor of a high-rise building. The landlord has no vulnerabilities listed for the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 March 2021 to complain about a number of issues. One of these related to dogs being off leash and/or present in the block following a prior vote agreeing on a ban on new dogs.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 23 May 2021. It explained the issue of managing dogs had been frustrating, as legislation had prevented it from taking action to separate residents and their dogs. It had tried to deter residents from acquiring dogs by holding a “dog free referendum” in the past. It asked the resident to report instances of dogs not on leashes so it could look to take action against owners.
The resident continued to contact the landlord about a number of different issues following the stage 1 response. On 28 March 2022 he emailed it about dog urine in the block outside the main door. The resident noted that the block had been made ‘dog free’ by the landlord a number of years previously. However, tenants were still experiencing unpleasantness and health risks associated with dog mess.
In response to further complaints from the resident about dog related issues on 28 March 2022 and 6 June 2022, the landlord issued stage 1 responses on 19 April 2022 and on 27 June 2022. It stated that that it was unable to remove the dogs via legal avenues. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 June 2022 to explain he was not satisfied with its stage 1 response of 27 June 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on the matter on 15 November 2022. It explained that while the block was intended to be dog free, and all efforts were being made to prevent new tenants from bringing dogs with them, it had been advised that it could not legally enforce this. It added that if dogs were causing a nuisance, enforcement action against the owner could be taken depending on evidence. However, it had not received sufficient evidence for any of the dogs currently in the block. It accepted that the resident may have been led to believe enforcement action could be taken when the dog free agreement had been originally made following the vote.
The resident continued to communicate with the landlord on a variety of issues including the dogs, ASB and concerns over the windows in the block not being cleaned. The landlord emailed the resident on 10 March 2023. It explained:
1. Although it was unable to take formal action against tenants who had breached the amended tenancy condition pertaining to dogs, it was continuing to deal with nuisance dogs. It reminded the resident to report any instances of nuisance dogs online or by calling its call centre.
2. It accepted others in the large block did not respect the area or the rules as well as the resident did. It asked him to continue to report ASB and it would investigate it. The landlord added it had the resident listed as a reporter on one open ASB case, but it noted he had not wanted to involve the police which limited the tools available to help him.
3. The latest information it had on the windows was that the issue was possibly going to be looked at by its planned programmes team. It would approach the appropriate team again about the matter.
The resident replied to the landlord adding his comments to its email on each point. The landlord advised that it would escalate his concerns to stage 2. It then issued a further stage 2 response on 31 March 2023. It explained it had already issued its final response on the issue of the resident’s concerns about the dogs on 15 November 2022. In terms of the ASB, it explained that it had one active case open at the time, however it noted the resident had not wished to involve the police so this limited what it could do. It added that in order to consider seeking possession of the alleged perpetrator’s property it would need strong evidence and must be able to demonstrate it had exhausted all avenues including offering mediation before proceeding to court. It considered the window cleaning to be a service request by the resident. It said it would consider the request and let the resident know the outcome of this, although it could come with a service charge.
The resident told the landlord he did not accept its response. He asked it to provide the actual legal advice it had received concerning the issue of dogs, which prevented it from taking the matter to court. He explained concerning the ASB that he had not involved the police as it was his word against that of the alleged perpetrator. He added while he understood the need for reasonable window cleaning charges to be covered by residents, the communal part windows of the building had not been cleaned for several years.
The resident explained when referring the complaint to this Service that he had asked the landlord a number of questions following the stage 2 response which it had not answered. It had instead referred him to the Ombudsman if he remained unhappy with its response. The resident has confirmed to this Service that he is looking for the landlord to award him compensation for the issues he raised with it and for its poor communication.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has continued to communicate with the landlord since the end of the last of the complaints, for which he received a stage 2 response on 31 March 2023. This has been in relation to a number of different issues, some of which were included in the resident’s previous complaints, such as the issue of the dogs in the block as well as other issues which include cladding, concerns about sprinklers and about lithium–ion batteries in high-rise buildings. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint or for which the resident has yet to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, this investigation has been limited to the issues as set out at the beginning of this report only.
The landlord has confirmed to the resident and to this Service that it is in the process of setting up a new complaint in relation to the issues raised in the resident’s most recent emails to it. While these would not form part of this investigation, the Ombudsman has made a recommendation at the end of this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about dogs

The resident’s lease does not specifically mention dogs. It does, however, state under the fourth schedule – which sets out the restrictions and regulations imposed in respect of the property – that “no animal bird or reptile shall be kept in the flat without the written permission” of the landlord.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that problems caused by animals, either by persistent barking or by uncontrolled behaviour, are considered to be nuisance, which is a type of ASB. The policy also considers dog fouling to be an environmental type of ASB.
The resident has provided the landlord with several pieces of evidence in the form of photos and witness statements over the issues of the dogs which he saw in and around the high-rise block. The resident also referred to a vote which the landlord had undertaken a few years ago concerning whether dogs should be allowed to remain in the blocks of flats. The resident has provided literature produced by the landlord following on from the vote which had proposed the banning of dogs from the block. The landlord has not disputed that it undertook a vote or that following the vote that it drew up the dog free block literature as well as posters around the block supporting the block being a dog free zone.
The landlord has stated it had discouraged new residents to the block from bringing dogs with them. It added that existing dogs in the block prior to the vote would not be removed, but that it had proposed informing residents that they were not to be replaced once they had moved or passed away. While the landlord did do this, it has explained having sought guidance on the matter that it was unable to legally remove the dogs from the property, with the exception if they were causing a nuisance. In that event it would follow up on the matter and look at removing the dog if the nuisance continued. It added however in order to do this it needed evidence of the nuisance.
While the resident provided numerous pictures of dog mess, and referred to unleashed dogs wandering around the block, he was unable to say for sure which dog(s) were responsible for the mess. The Ombudsman understands that in some of his communication to the landlord, the resident mentioned that he had suspicions on who had been responsible for it. However, a suspicion would not be sufficient evidence for the landlord to act further and to enable it to contact the dog owner about the matter.
This Service accepts the presence of dog mess in the block would have been an unpleasant sight both for residents and visitors. The landlord explained in the case of dog mess in and around the grounds of the property including the communal areas that the caretaker services would remove it once they had been notified of the matter. It added that the caretaker would not remove dog mess which was outside the grounds of the property. This was reasonable and appropriate and in keeping with the landlord’s caretaking services, whose duties included the cleaning of communal areas, removal of rubbish and health hazards, and checking and dealing with any issues which affected the environment of estates.
While the resident proactively reported a number of incidents of dog mess to the landlord, the landlord’s caretaker would not have always been patrolling the estate and as a result may not have been aware of the issue until it was reported. The Service has seen no evidence of the landlord’s caretaker having not dealt with or refusing to deal with an instance of mess on the grounds or in the high-rise block when made aware of it. This was in keeping with the landlord’s communal cleaning rota which noted that tasks included checking and cleaning the outside of entrances and the sweeping, cleaning and mopping of foyers, lifts, stairwells, walkways and corridors.
While it may have been the intention of the landlord, at the time it proposed the vote on the matter, to ban dogs from the block, it later discovered that it was not legally possible to do this. Although the resident has stated that the landlord ought to have sought legal guidance prior to allowing the tenants to vote on the matter and declaring the block a dog free zone, it would not have been privy to future changes in law on the issue. Having said this, this Service accepts that the marketing of the area being a dog free zone at the time by the landlord was misleading and could have given the resident the expectation that the ban favoured by residents would be strictly enforced by the landlord. The impact of this service failure on the resident would have been that he suffered a degree of distress and inconvenience due to the misrepresentation.
While the resident has provided the landlord and this Service with pictures showing the effect of fleas to his legs, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and specific health conditions. Instead, matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine. This is in line with paragraph 42f of the Scheme, which says the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The resident has continued to communicate with the landlord in relation to the issue of the dogs since November 2022, regarding the proposed block ban, dog mess and unleashed dogs roaming about the high-rise block. In terms of the ban, the landlord referred the resident to its response of 15 November 2022. This was appropriate as it had provided the resident with referral rights to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied with its final response. In terms of the dog mess and reports of unleashed dogs, the landlord has followed up on these issues by trying to identify the dogs and owners to see if it can progress any possible enforcement as a result. This was an appropriate approach for the landlord to take.
The landlord has provided evidence that it has followed up when contacted by the resident with concerns about dogs not being on leash and in the reporting of dog mess. However, its advertising of the block to be dog free was incorrect. This misrepresentation gave the resident an unrealistic expectation that it would be able to take enforcement action on dogs and their owners where the amended tenancy agreement preventing dogs had been breached. This amounts to service failure by the landlord.
The Ombudsman considers that an award of compensation is payable for this service failure, and that an amount of £100 is appropriate given the circumstances. This amount is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for issues which have caused a low to medium level of impact.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that the landlord will investigate reports of ASB and, where appropriate, take action against residents. It adds that “before pursuing formal action, we will first try to help resolve conflict informally. This means encouraging, empowering, and supporting individuals and communities, where appropriate, to resolve issues themselves. We will work with reporters and those identified as causing ASB to assess and address support needs”.
The ASB policy sets out examples of different types of what is considered to be ASB. Included within this list is:
1. Behaviour which is violent or verbal abuse or actions or threats of violence, which is categorised as personal ASB.
2. Noise nuisance and problems caused by animals, including uncontrolled behaviour and persistent barking, which is categorised as nuisance ASB.
3. Fly-tipping, litter and dog fouling, which is classed as environmental ASB.
The ASB policy sets out that when tackling ASB, the landlord has 7 core principles. These include incremental case progression and being victim oriented, proportionate, and evidence led. In terms of being evidence led, this means it needs to evidence ASB was occurring before it can deal with issues. Where it is unable to do this, it will “work with victims to enable and empower them to build evidence while ensuring they are supported with the impact that any ASB maybe having on them”. The incremental case progression means that the landlord will use a stepped approach to resolve the issue using the least intrusive interventions in the first instance, followed by increasing levels of intervention up to taking the matter to court.
The resident has accepted that some of the tenants in the block have vulnerabilities which impact on their behaviour. He specifically mentioned to the landlord in February 2023 an incident with a neighbour which took place in the lift. The landlord asked him to elaborate on the issue and enquired as to whether the resident had contacted the police. This was in keeping with its ASB policy, which set out that the landlord took a partnership approach and worked with other agencies in tackling ASB. While the resident explained why he had not approached the police (due to the lack of evidence apart from his word against that of the neighbour), the landlord did not need a police report to consider the matter in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord has provided evidence to this Service that it followed up where appropriate on the resident’s reports of ASB. This included issuing warning letters to alleged perpetrators, informing them of the reported ASB and setting out further action it could take if this continued. In the case of the active open ASB case, the landlord explained that it would be visiting the neighbour in question to discuss the reports being made involving them. It added that it would be looking at putting an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) in place for this individual. The use of ABCs was in keeping with the landlord’s ASB policy in terms of incremental case progression. While the resident felt that the landlord had sufficient evidence to act in relation to various issues, including to do with music, dogs and an incident with a scooter, these did not all appear to relate to the same individual. Given this, the landlord’s approach was reasonable.
Overall, the landlord followed its ASB policy in terms of the resident’s reporting of ASB. While it enquired about whether the resident had contacted the police concerning the incident in the lift, it still investigated the matter and took action where it identified ASB. This was appropriate, and therefore the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about window cleaning

The resident raised concerns about the windows in the high-rise block over a period of several years. His concerns appeared to relate to both the external windows of individual flats and those in the communal parts. In terms of each flat’s windows, the resident’s concerns were about the charges individual residents were having to pay privately to have their windows cleaned. He asked whether the landlord could assist in obtaining a single contract to have external windows cleaned several times a year as this would be more cost effective. The resident also raised concerns that the windows in the communal areas of the property had not been cleaned for a considerable number of years.
The responsibilities of the landlord and the tenant are set out under the lease. The third schedule sets out under the section “cleansing and redecorating exterior” that “the cost from time to time as and when necessary or cleansing and/or of redecorating the exterior of the building and off all parts”, which included the windows, was considered an expense of the landlord for which the resident was expected to pay a proportionate part by means of a service charge.
The leaseholder’s handbook, which aims to put into simpler language the rights and rules under the lease, sets out that the resident has responsibility for the “demised premises”. This is defined as including the window glass of the property. In other words, the lease handbook sets out that the responsibility for the windows in the property rests with the leaseholder.
The landlord has not provided any evidence that the service charge which the resident paid to it included a contribution towards the cleaning of the exterior windows. The resident stated in his correspondence to the landlord that it would not be unreasonable for tenants to contribute towards this, and that he considered that the costs per tenant would be minimal in respect of the service charge. The landlord’s cleaning rota did not specify that it included the cleaning of windows; instead, the rota specified that the cleaning tasks included “wash/wipe doors, window ledges and banisters”.
In its communication with the resident, the landlord set out that its planned maintenance team would consider looking at the window issues in the future, but that it did not currently have a contractor on its books which could clean the windows. It added that the costs of the cleaning would be high due to the height of the high-rise block. While the resident expressed his preference for the external windows to be cleaned, he accepted that some other tenants did not clean their windows. The landlord confirmed to the resident that the windows in the flats were reversible, which meant that tenants were able to turn them around to clean them themselves. It is noted that, while this advice on the window cleaning would have been appropriate for those residents/tenants who could easily reach and manipulate the windows, it may not have been practical for elderly residents or those with disabilities who would struggle to reach the windows.
The lease sets out that the landlord was responsible for the cleaning of the external windows. Although there was no set definition of what “from time to time” meant in terms of the frequency of the cleaning, the resident stated that the windows had not been cleaned for a considerable time. The landlord stated in its communication to the resident on 29 November 2019 that “the contract has ended and there is no plans to open this again”. It added that “this contract simply does not exist because of the lack of funding”. These comments supported that the landlord was responsible for the cleaning, and while this would be something contributed by tenants by means of a service charge, the omission of this was a failure by the landlord. The impact of this service failure to the resident was that it caused him a degree of distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman considers an award of £100 to be appropriate for this failing.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord operated a 2-stage complaint procedure at the time of the resident’s complaints. Its policy stated it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days and send the response within 15 working days. Its policy said it would send stage 2 complaint responses within 15 working days, having acknowledged the escalation request again within 3 working days.
This investigation has considered 4 complaints made by the resident. These were on 8 April 2021, 28 March 2022, 6 June 2022 and 10 March 2023.
In the case of the first complaint, the landlord acknowledged the complaint in keeping with the complaints policy and set out that it would be providing its response on 29 April 2021. It however did not issue the stage 1 response until 23 May 2021, 15 working days outside this timescale. While the landlord’s response did apologise for the delay, it did not explain the reason for it.
The resident requested an escalation of his third complaint after receiving the landlord’s stage 1 response on 27 June 2022. This request was made on 28 June 2022. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the request until 26 July 2022, 20 working days later. This was considerably outside the timescales contained in its policy. While the landlord stated it would provide the stage 2 response by 9 August 2022, it did not provide it until more than 3 months later on 15 November 2022. The landlord again did not offer an apology or explanation as to why its response had been delayed.
The resident contacted the landlord in February 2023 in relation to further issues with to dogs, ASB and window cleaning. The landlord replied to the resident via email on 10 March 2023 on these matters. Following on from the resident’s reply to the landlord on the same day, it informed him it would escalate the complaint to stage 2. However, the landlord’s initial response on 10 March 2023 was not a stage 1 response. The end of its email informed the resident that should he remain dissatisfied with its response he should “follow the complaints procedure”. Despite the resident doing this and informing the landlord he was forwarding the email (and his response) to the complaints department; it instead forwent the stage 1 process as outlined in its complaints policy.
On several occasions the landlord deviated from the timescales as set out in its complaint policy for providing its response. When it did so it failed to provide the resident with any explanation for the delays. It also did not issue a stage 1 response on one occasion and instead escalated the complaint straight to stage 2. These occurrences were a failure on its part and would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience as it would have appeared to him that the landlord was not following its own complaints policy. The Ombudsman considers that an award of compensation of £100 is payable for this failure. This amount is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for issues which have caused a low to medium level of impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about dogs.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about window cleaning.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within the next 4 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £300. This is made up of the following:
  1. £100 for its failures in terms of the resident’s concerns about dogs.
  2. £100 for its handling of the resident’s concerns about window cleaning.
  3. £100 for its failures in its complaints handling.
Within the next 8 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to commence the process of obtaining quotations in relation to the external window cleaning for the block. Once the landlord has received the quotations from more than one contractor it should then write out to all tenants of the high-rise block to set out the contribution required by each of them towards the service charge for this service. The landlord should then survey tenants/residents of the block to establish whether this service is wanted.

Recommendation

The landlord should review the concerns raised by the resident following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process in March 2023. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss these concerns and any other outstanding matters.