Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Peabody Trust (202331774)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331774

Peabody Trust

28 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the conduct of a staff member while handling an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy for a maisonette, which began in 2003. She lives with her children, including two who were under 12 years old at the time of her complaint.
  2. On 12 September 2023 a member of staff at the landlord called the resident to discuss ASB reports they said they had received about her children’s behaviour over the last two months. The resident found the staff member’s behaviour to be “rude, aggressive, threatening”. She asked their permission to record the end of the call.
  3. On 15 September 2023 the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint about the staff member’s behaviour during the call. She said that she was surprised by the warnings she had received, as she had not been contacted about the alleged ASB before.
  4. On 19 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord, and said it had just told her it was taking her to court. She asked for clarity on what was “really happening”, and said she did not need the “stress”.
  5. The staff member’s manager replied to the resident the next day, and provided a stage 1 complaint response. They confirmed that the landlord was not taking legal action against the resident, and clarified that the allegations that had been made about her children were that they had dropped litter into a neighbour’s garden, shouted at the neighbour and made them feel intimidated. The manager discussed a report the resident had made to the police about the staff member, and said that the police had confirmed it would not take further action. The manager confirmed that the staff member had not made recordings of her children, but they had “been captured” on a neighbour’s CCTV. The manager advised the resident that it was not holding the data, and that she would need to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if she had concerns about the legality of her neighbour’s storage of data.
  6. On 26 September 2023 the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2, and investigated by someone “independent” from the staff member’s team – as the manager who had responded to her could be “biased”.
  7. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 17 October 2023, handled by a manager from a separate team. It:
    1. Apologised for the inconvenience the resident had experienced in trying to communicate with it about her complaint, and recognised “missed opportunities” to resolve the matter in “a timely manner”;
    2. Set out general improvements it was making to its complaint processes;
    3. Explained that it is challenging to investigate allegations without evidence. It asked the resident to send it the recording she had made of the call, and said it would investigate further when it received this. It had previously explained to the resident that it did not record calls itself.
  8. The resident contacted the ICO, and the landlord confirmed to it that it did not have video or photographs of the resident’s children. The ICO advised the resident that there was no further action it would take given the circumstances.

Assessment and findings

  1. As acknowledged by the landlord, it is limited in the extent of any investigation or action it can take without evidence of alleged misconduct by its staff. This is because it has to balance its responsibilities to the resident with its responsibilities as an employer.
  2. The resident’s concerns centred on:
    1. Whether the landlord had taken her upset at the staff member’s behaviour seriously;
    2. Whether the landlord was taking disproportionate action in relation to the allegations of ASB;
    3. Whether the landlord was storing footage of her children, and whether it had acted properly when it learned of the undisclosed neighbour recording her children;
    4. Whether there had been a ‘mix up’ and the landlord had instead received reports about children of another household.
  3. In terms of its response to the resident’s complaint about the staff member, the landlord did investigate with the evidence it had available. It told the resident that it had not received reports of similar behaviour from any other residents. It also told the resident that it had checked with the police, and that it had been confirmed that no further action would be taken by the police. It promised to look into the matter again if she did provide it with the recording she had made.
  4. These were proportionate actions, and demonstrate that the landlord did not dismiss the resident’s concerns. It took appropriate steps based on the limited information available to it.
  5. In terms of the action around the alleged ASB, the landlord did confirm in its first complaint response the details of what had been alleged, and that it was not taking legal action against the resident. By doing this, the landlord provided direct and clear responses to the resident.
  6. The landlord has advised both the resident and the ICO that it is not holding footage of her children. While it has an obligation to uphold the confidentiality of information about her neighbours, the resident’s concerns about who had footage of her children was understandable. The landlord had a role to play in ensuring that these were addressed through its management of the ASB case.
  7. The resident has been left feeling “unheard” and has experienced avoidable distress as a result of this concern remaining unanswered.
  8. While the landlord has responded to the specifics of the resident’s complaint fully, proportionately, and appropriately, there is learning to be taken from the resident’s experience. The landlord should consider whether it would have helped the situation for a member of its management to meet with the resident in person and talk through her concerns.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a staff member while handling an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case.

 

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord explain to the resident either who/ where the footage of her children was obtained from, or confirm to her if it has been told it cannot share this information with her.
  2. We recommend the landlord consider whether its ASB staff could benefit from guidance about cases where its residents provide CCTV footage or photos to support allegations of ASB, and how it handles this information in a way that will be least likely to cause distress or inflame the situation in its neighbourhoods.