Peabody Trust (202114107)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114107

Peabody Trust

19 February 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns;
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and his tenancy began in 1999. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. The resident has vulnerabilities relating to his physical and mental health. They include cancer, restricted mobility, Schizophrenia, depression and anxiety. He is engaged in a long running dispute with a neighbour in the flat above (the neighbour). Amongst other issues, he frequently reports intrusive noise from the neighbour, which he feels is deliberate. The information seen indicates the neighbour is also vulnerable.
The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure documents show the landlord aims to prevent and minimise ASB. This can include “repeated prolonged high-level noise nuisance” as defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The landlord does not consider low level disagreements between neighbours, where no breach of tenancy has occurred, to be ASB. It adopts the same approach to everyday household noise such as footsteps. It has a range of preventative measures to tackle ASB including mediation and legal action.
The landlord’s ASB handlers should show empathy to the reporting party. However, they must not agree to take any disproportionate action. When considering proportionality, the landlord will weigh various factors including: the severity of the reported ASB, the impact and frequency of the behaviour, the level of risk to the affected parties, and the evidence available to support the case. The landlord will manage expectations accordingly. It can close an ASB case if there is not enough evidence to take further action against an alleged perpetrator.
In some circumstances, the landlord can consider transferring a reporting resident to alternative accommodation through its priority move process. This option is reserved for the most serious ASB cases. The landlord should consider various factors when assessing a priority move request. This includes supporting information from the police. Typically, the police must give the landlord written confirmation that the reporting party will be subjected to a significant level of risk if they remain in their home.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its policy and procedure documents show it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. Historically, it aimed to respond to complaints within 15 working days at stage 2. From the information seen, its relevant timescale changed to 20 working days around October 2022. The landlord can consider complaints about its own ASB handling. This means it does not treat ASB reports as complaints in the first instance.

Summary of events

Case records show the parties’ (landlord and resident) actions have broadly followed a pattern over a number of years. The pattern typically begins with the resident reporting ASB from the neighbour. After opening an ASB case, the landlord will eventually notify the resident there is insufficient evidence to warrant action against the neighbour. Soon after the landlord has given its case outcome, the resident will make further reports prompting the landlord to open a new ASB case.
For example, the landlord wrote to the resident in early March 2020. In summary, it said any further ASB complaints from the resident needed to be evidenced. Further, though the resident may feel this decision was unfair, evidence was a standard requirement in ASB cases. The landlord signposted the resident to a noise monitoring app. Other key points were:
1. The landlord was “yet to see or hear evidence of the noise” the resident had complained about.
2. It was aware the resident had made reports to the police, but this was not evidence of noise nuisance.
3. The landlord asked the other block residents if they were impacted by noise from the neighbour. No one had replied to its relevant correspondence.
In another letter on 22 June 2021, which related to a different ASB case, the landlord told the resident it recently discussed matters at length with the neighbour. Further, the neighbour had denied “banging, stomping, or intentionally dropping items on their floor. In addition, they had made a number of counter allegations against the resident. Other key points were:
1. The neighbour claimed the resident had been making similar allegations for years. They felt the resident disliked them and wanted to force them to move.
2. The neighbour also reported the resident had, on “numerous occasions”, banged on their door with a hammer. The resident had agreed he was responsible and the landlord had seen holes left in the door. This behaviour was unacceptable.
3. As a next step, the landlord would visit the neighbour’s home. This would help it to decide a suitable course of action. The landlord would update the resident in due course.
The landlord updated the resident on 30 July 2021. Its letter said no further action would be taken against the neighbour. This was on the basis the resident’s ASB diary sheets did not provide “factual evidence”. As a result, it said the case amounted to the resident’s word against the neighbour’s. Further, unless he was willing to make recordings, the landlord would not discuss historical complaints with the resident any more. Other key points were:
1. The landlord previously signposted the resident to a noise monitoring app. The resident had refused to use it on the basis he was only willing to complete diary sheets.
2. The landlord had spoken to its previous local representative, who advised they witnessed an altercation between the resident and the neighbour in 2019. The representative said the resident was the instigator and he had been issued a formal warning about the incident.
3. In relation to the holes in the neighbour’s front door, the resident’s behaviour was intimidating. It could be considered harassment and vandalism.
4. The landlord had decided not to visit the neighbour’s home. This was on the basis it had no concerns about their property.
5. At the resident’s request, the landlord had written to the other block residents about the neighbour. In response, one resident approached the landlord to discuss the neighbour. However, “nothing of concern was raised”.
Following further contact from the resident, the landlord issued a similar letter on 21 September 2021. It said, if he needed assistance, the landlord could help the resident download the noise app. Our records show the resident approached the Ombudsman on the same day. Subsequently, we asked the landlord to respond to his complaint about its ASB handling. In reply, the landlord told us it previously responded to the resident’s concerns under its expression of dissatisfaction process because there was no evidence of ASB. It also said it would ask the resident to provide evidence before making an ASB complaint.
Around a week later, the landlord opened a new ASB case for the resident. Its case notes show the resident stressed his vulnerabilities and reported that ongoing noise was making him ill. The notes said he had recently lost loved ones through bereavement. They also said he declined to use the noise app on the basis he had done this before and nothing had changed. Overall, the notes show the landlord’s advisor was worried about the resident’s welfare. However, no information was seen to show the landlord signposted the resident to any relevant support services at this point.
Around this time, the resident reported the neighbour had thrown “a big thick glass outside the window”. There was some conflicting information about the date of this incident. Nevertheless, the landlord’s case notes suggest the glass narrowly missed the resident and some other neighbours. They said the resident reported the neighbour’s behaviour was getting worse and block residents were frightened. They show he urged the landlord to take action.
During a phone call in mid-October 2021, the resident told us the landlord had not replied to his complaint. He also said he had given the landlord photographic evidence. Based on this call, we asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns through its formal complaints process by 22 October 2021. Our correspondence relayed the resident’s comments around photographic evidence. Our call notes did not capture details of his photos, but in February 2024 the resident told us they showed a broken glass jug.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 October 2021. It said its letter was prompted by our intervention. In addition, the landlord’s position was outlined in its letters from 22 June and 30 July 2021 and copies were enclosed for reference. The landlord reiterated it needed evidence to pursue the resident’s concerns. It said, though it was sorry he was frustrated, “general household noise (was) not considered ASB”. Further, it could only act “within the confines of the tenancy agreement”. The landlord encouraged the resident to keep diaries and use the noise app. Its letter did not mention photographs.
On 11 November 2021 the landlord referred the resident’s case internally. Its case notes show the referral was based on an emotional phone call from the resident. The notes said he reported the noise had been ongoing for 10 years and he was struggling with the recent death of his partner. They also said the resident was reluctant to provide supporting evidence due to the landlord’s previous lack of action. The landlord’s related internal enquiry asked if the resident could be assessed with a view to supporting him further.
Subsequently, the landlord visited the resident at the property. There is conflicting information about the date of this visit. The evidence suggests it took place on either 16 November or 16 December 2021. Case notes said the resident reported he was taking medication and received support from a “link worker”. Further, he felt targeted by the neighbour who had recently attempted to injure him. In addition, despite multiple complaints over the years, neither the landlord or the police had taken any action. The notes also said the resident wanted the landlord to make him a direct offer of sheltered accommodation.
Further notes said the landlord discussed the case at length internally on 17 January 2022. They said the landlord was unable to take enforcement action against the neighbour because the resident was unwilling to provide “sound recordings, videos or diary sheets”. They also said the landlord had more ASB evidence about the resident than it had against the neighbour. In addition, the resident did not meet the criteria for a priority transfer. However, he had been given information about the landlord’s bidding process for general moves.
The landlord’s records and correspondence shows the resident chased the landlord for updates at least 6 times between 12 and 31 January 2022. The information seen confirms there was a high-volume of contact from the resident to the landlord throughout the timeline.
The landlord’s records and correspondence show the resident made several further ASB reports in February 2022. During this time, call notes said he told the landlord it should move the neighbour. However, the landlord replied it could not force people to move. The information seen shows the landlord reiterated its requests for supporting evidence a number of times during this period. Broadly, the parties’ pattern of contact continued during March 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 April 2022. It said it was satisfied the resident was receiving help and advice in relation to his housing and health issues. Since his support needs were met, the landlord said it was unable to provide further practical assistance. The letter included information about additional support services that were available in the area. The landlord’s other points were:
1. The resident should continue working with medical professionals to manage his health conditions.
2. In relation to the ASB, the resident should continue working with the landlord’s local representative. He should collect evidence to support enforcement action against the neighbour.
3. The resident’s personal safety concerns were noted, but his circumstances did not warrant a management transfer. He should register for rehousing with the local authority. The landlord could help if he needed any related support.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call in late April 2022. Our records show he was unhappy the landlord had closed his most recent ASB case. Further, he complained that “the landlord denied evidence of the neighbour throwing glass around communal areas”, and it was slow to contact the neighbour (assumed about his ASB reports). On the same day, we relayed these concerns to the landlord and asked it to respond at stage 1 by 13 May 2022. The landlord’s records show it opened a corresponding ASB case on 3 May 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 May 2022. It said it understood he wanted it to investigate his ASB concerns “without the need for diary sheets”. The landlord referred the resident to previous correspondence and said its case handling was in line with its ASB policy. It asked the resident to explain why he was still unhappy so it could investigate accordingly. It said it would not revisit issues that had already been investigated. Further, it was willing to discuss matters with the resident at a convenient time. No information was seen to show the resident replied.
On 30 May 2022, following further contact from the resident, we asked the landlord to provide a formal complaint response by 8 June 2022. Subsequently, the landlord issued a formal response within the deadline. Its correspondence included a copy of its email from 6 May 2022. It reiterated the landlord needed the requested information before it could investigate further. It said the resident should get in touch within 10 days or the complaint would be closed. It also said the resident could escalate his complaint to stage 2. A contact email address was included in the letter.
Call notes from mid-July 2022 show the landlord had spoken to the resident. They said he declined to use noise monitoring equipment and asserted his complaint should be at stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. They suggest the parties discussed the different criteria for medical and ASB related moves. They also said the resident wanted compensation for the neighbour’s ASB. Further, he told the landlord he might lash out at the neighbour because he was unwell. The landlord encouraged the resident to speak to the emergency services.
Our records show the resident called the Ombudsman in early September 2022. The notes said we discussed ASB in general and stressed the importance of continuous reporting so the landlord could take action. They also said the resident seemed unwilling to listen or take the relevant advice. This was on the basis he had “reported plenty of incidents – many times”. Based on this interaction, we subsequently contacted the landlord again. The landlord’s records suggest it opened a new ASB case on 9 September 2022.
On 20 October 2022 the landlord issued a further response at stage 1. It referred to the landlord’s email and letter in May and June 2022. The landlord said it was not aware of an escalation request from the resident around this time. Further, the resident recently refused to provide evidence to support his ASB concerns. In addition, the landlord needed up to date evidence to act on his reports. Other key points were:
1. Managing ASB cases required collaboration between the parties. The landlord was unable to progress matters or take action without the resident’s assistance. A copy of its ASB policy was enclosed.
2. The landlord understood the resident was undergoing treatment for cancer. If his health was preventing him from completing diary sheets, it would explore other options to evidence the noise.
3. The landlord acknowledged its formal response to the resident’s complaint was delayed. It awarded him £50 in compensation to put things right.
4. If the resident was still unhappy, the landlord could discuss his rationale. If the parties were unable to agree, the resident could escalate his complaint. Impartial advice was available through the Ombudsman.
On 24 October 2022, the landlord emailed the resident some blank ASB diary sheets and a medical assessment form for rehousing. It encouraged him to record ASB incidents.
The resident updated the Ombudsman on 26 October 2022. He said ASB from his neighbour, which included banging, screaming and abusive behaviour, was still ongoing. Further, he needed help to progress his complaint. He also said the landlord should move the neighbour into supported housing and he should not be forced to move. On the same day, we asked the landlord to issue a stage 2 response by 23 November 2022.
On 5 November 2022 the landlord opened a new ASB case. Its records show the resident reported the neighbour had left papers in a hallway outside their home. They said the resident was unable to sleep because he was concerned the papers were a fire hazard. Additional records suggest he called the landlord again the same day. Corresponding notes said he reported the neighbour had removed the papers. In addition, the resident reported he was completing the diary sheets and the neighbour had mental health issues.
The landlord called the resident on 9 November 2022 to discuss the new ASB case. The Ombudsman has not seen the corresponding call notes. Three days later, the landlord wrote to the block’s residents about potential fire hazards. Records show it also attempted to contact the neighbour unsuccessfully.
On 22 November 2022 an operative sent the landlord images of completed incident diaries on the resident’s behalf. The operative’s email shows they met the resident whilst conducting a fire risk assessment in the block. The Ombudsman has not seen the images attached to the operative’s email.
On 1 December 2022, the resident reported the neighbour had 20 used rubbish bags in their home which were attracting flies. The case notes also said he was unable to sleep due to the sound of the neighbour’s footsteps.
The neighbour responded to the landlord by email on 13 December 2022. Their email confirms the landlord had been trying to contact them recently. They denied the resident’s allegations and reported he was aggressive.
The resident updated the Ombudsman around a week later. He said the landlord had sufficient evidence to act against the neighbour but the landlord was ignoring it. Specifically, our call notes referenced evidence of broken glass. We signposted the resident to the Community Trigger process (a multi-agency ASB case review mechanism designed to tackle persistent ASB). Within days, we told the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint by 5 January 2023.
On 29 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident a stage 2 acknowledgement. It indicated it may need additional investigation time due to staff leave. In this event, it said it would update the resident prior to the Ombudsman’s deadline. The landlord subsequently failed to comply with the Ombudsman’s deadline. No information was seen to show it updated the resident as promised.
The Ombudsman issued the landlord a final chaser on 6 January 2023. We said, to avoid a Complaint Handling Failure Order, the landlord should issue a stage 2 response within 5 working days. The landlord’s records show its stage 2 complaint handler called the resident on the same day. They said the resident advised he submitted supporting diary sheets in November 2022. The resident resubmitted his diary sheet images the following day.
On 9 January 2022 the landlord offered to install sound monitoring equipment at the property. Its call notes said the resident declined this offer on the basis a device had been installed several years ago and a positive outcome was not achieved. In related internal correspondence, the landlord said the resident reported the ASB was ongoing. However, he also reported there were no recent diary sheets because the landlord had only asked him to provide 2 full sheets.
On 11 January 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. This was 2 days before the Ombudsman’s final deadline. The response said the Ombudsman initially contacted the landlord in late April 2022. It also quoted the landlord’s email from 6 May 2022 before detailing subsequent events from the landlord’s perspective. Overall, the landlord accepted there was a delay in reviewing the resident’s ASB diary sheets from November 2022. It also acknowledged there were complaint handling failures at stage 2. The new points were:
1. The resident called the landlord for an update on 18 July 2022. At the time, the operative noted the resident talked over them and did not listen to the answers provided. Having since listened to this call, the landlord agreed with its operative’s summary. It felt there were similar issues in a more recent call with the resident.
2. It could be challenging to resolve ASB, so it was important that recent allegations were supported by recent evidence. Historical evidence would not allow the landlord to act against a perpetrator. Without the resident’s cooperation, the landlord was unable to progress any investigation.
3. The landlord was sorry it failed to respond to the resident’s ASB diary sheets. Having reviewed the information recently, there were only 2 pages of evidence. The information related to November 2022 and the resident had recently confirmed no subsequent sheets were available.
4. The landlord felt “independent sound recording equipment” would be more beneficial than diary sheets. It was aware the resident had declined its recent offer to install this equipment. To help with the resident’s current allegations, the landlord could not focus on past events.
5. Given his level of contact with the landlord and the Ombudsman, it was clear the resident wanted help with the alleged ASB. However, the landlord’s review showed he often declined to cooperate. This caused delays and prevented the landlord obtaining evidence. The resident was encouraged to allow the noise monitoring equipment to be installed.
6. The landlord was aware the resident was undergoing medical treatment. During a phone call, he previously told the landlord that he lacked confidence using mobile phones or general technology. The landlord had asked its local representative to work with the resident. It wanted to obtain the required evidence while taking his individual needs into account.
7. There was a delay following the Ombudsman’s correspondence in October 2022. It occurred because the landlord failed to allocate the resident’s complaint promptly. The landlord was sorry for any related inconvenience.
8. Overall, the resident’s core complaint about the landlord’s ASB handling was not upheld. In relation to the failures identified, the landlord awarded the resident a total of £175 in compensation comprising: £100 for complaint handling delays at stages 1 and 2, and £75 for the delay in responding to the resident’s diary sheets.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response there was a gap in the evidence for several months. However, on 25 April 2023 the landlord opened a new ASB case in response to a further report from the resident. Case notes said he reported ongoing noise from the neighbour in the early hours. They show the resident emphasised his health conditions and refused to provide supporting diary sheets.
Around a month later, the landlord called the resident for an update. Call notes show he reported the neighbour had been quiet for several days. They said the resident had refused to provide recent diary sheets and he previously refused sound monitoring equipment. Other records show the parties were in contact during the interim period (from late April to late May 2023).
On 27 June 2023 the resident raised a new complaint with the landlord. Records show he reported the neighbour often threw dangerous objects out of their window. Broadly, he said the landlord had failed because the neighbour’s ASB had been ongoing for years. He also requested an urgent move.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 13 July 2023. He said nothing was being done to help him and the police were not helping either. Further, the neighbour had poisoned his plant and thrown some of his belongings away. He also said he had sought help from external agencies including an ASB assistance organisation.
In a further update to the Ombudsman on 20 November 2023, the resident reported the neighbour was not taking their rubbish out and the waste was attracting rats. Our notes show he wanted compensation due to the neighbour’s ASB. There was another gap in the evidence at this point.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 6 February 2024. He said ongoing ASB from the neighbour was impacting his health and wellbeing. He stressed his vulnerabilities and said the landlord should move the neighbour. Broadly, he felt the landlord’s lack of action and updates was unfair. In addition, compensation was warranted because the neighbour’s erratic and frightening behaviour had prevented him from enjoying the property over a prolonged period. Other key points were:
1. The resident had given the landlord images of a broken glass jug, which the neighbour threw from a top floor window. The landlord received these images but it “covered (them) up”. The incident was witnessed by other neighbours.
2. Noise monitoring equipment had been installed at the property around 2013. It did not work and the resident was not prepared to repeat the same course of action. He had a comparable attitude towards keeping diary sheets.
3. The resident had reported incidents to the police. He was unsure what action the police had taken but they had advised the resident to stay away from the neighbour.
4. The resident previously participated in mediation and he had been to court (it was unclear of whether these actions related to the neighbour because the resident indicated there were less severe noise issues with 2 previous neighbours).
5. Recently, the neighbour had opened the resident’s mail and obtained important “financial and passport” information. The resident had reported the incident to the police but he felt “violated”.

Assessment and findings

It is accepted the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we are unable to determine liability or award damages. In other words, we are unable to establish if the landlord was responsible for any deterioration in the resident’s physical or mental health.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remit, this assessment considered the issues raised in the resident’s formal complaint. These issues are broadly reflected in the timeline above. Given the time that has passed, historical incidents were beyond the scope of our investigation. Similarly, we did not consider any new issues that were raised after the landlord’s stage 2 response on 20 October 2022. If he remains unhappy, the resident can bring his more recent concerns to the Ombudsman once they have completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the related formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether an individual party is responsible for ASB. Our investigation considers the landlord’s actions in the context of its relevant policies and procedures, as well as what was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. We cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
The evidence shows the resident made frequent ASB reports about the neighbour over an extended period of time. Broadly, the neighbour has denied these reports and made counter allegations against the resident. The landlord has legal obligations to both the resident and the neighbour. Accordingly, and in line with its ASB policy, any preventative action by the landlord must be proportionate. In general, supporting evidence is crucial to progress any ASB case. In this case, the Ombudsman has not seen sufficient evidence which would have justified any firm action by the landlord against the neighbour.
For example, antisocial noise from the neighbour was a key part of the resident’s complaint. However, despite the duration of the dispute and the amount of reports, there was no evidence to show any third parties witnessed excessive noise from the neighbour. Environmental Health can conduct noise monitoring and establish the presence of noise nuisance. There was also no indication of any successful police action against the neighbour. Nor was any information seen to suggest that the community trigger process was invoked.
Given the circumstances, the landlord’s repeated requests for supporting evidence were not unfair to the resident. Further, the landlord’s ASB policy shows it can close an ASB case when it lacks sufficient evidence to act against an alleged perpetrator. Nevertheless, there were issues with the landlord’s ASB handling. For example, the landlord accepted that it failed to respond to the resident’s most recent diary sheets when they were first submitted in November 2022. Ultimately, it awarded the resident £75 in related compensation.
However, the timeline points to a similar issue in September 2021. Around this time, the resident reported that a large glass object thrown by the neighbour had narrowly missed himself and other neighbours. This was a new issue and, given its severity, it warranted swift investigation by the landlord under its ASB policy. Still, no information was seen to show the landlord responded accordingly to the resident’s allegation. Similarly, there was no indication it attempted to discuss the incident with the neighbour or any other parties who were present.
The landlord’s failure to respond in this instance represents inappropriate ASB handling. On that basis, it should have attempted to put things right for the resident, who perceived its handling of his reports was unfair. Nevertheless, there was no guarantee that an appropriate response from the landlord would have achieved the resident’s preferred outcome (strong action by the landlord against the neighbour). Overall, the landlord should continue monitoring the neighbour dispute and give particular attention to incidents that differ from the parties’ existing pattern of behaviour.
In contrast to the above incident, the timeline suggests the landlord’s response to the resident’s later reports of a potential fire hazard, in November 2022, was much better. It shows the landlord had written to the block’s resident’s about the issue within days of the resident’s report. It suggests a follow up fire risk assessment was then completed in the block soon afterwards.
In summary, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s September 2021 report that the neighbour had thrown a glass object. For example, there was no indication it attempted to discuss the incident with the neighbour or any other parties who were present. This was inappropriate given the severity of the incident. The landlord subsequently failed to put things right for the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns

The resident has several vulnerabilities and the evidence shows he has been dealing with some difficult personal circumstances. The landlord should have therefore shown him due care and compassion. The below assessment used the Ombudsman’s inquisitorial remit to consider whether the landlord acted with appropriate sensitivity given his vulnerabilities. It may help to explain that rehousing requests on health and welfare grounds are typically outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction based on Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996).
Given the above, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is usually better placed to consider complaints that fall within Part 6. Management transfers are within the Ombudsman’s remit because they fall outside of these rules. This means we can consider the ASB related aspect of the resident’s request for a priority move to alternative accommodation. Though we cannot compel the landlord to move the resident, we can consider whether it followed its relevant policies, and acted reasonably given the circumstances.
The timeline suggests the resident reported concerns about his personal safety around the time of the alleged glass throwing incident in September 2021. The landlord addressed these concerns during its correspondence to the resident in April 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen details of the resident’s specific concerns. Nevertheless, there was no evidence to suggest he qualified for a priority move based on his ASB reports. The landlord’s ASB policy shows this option requires a supporting statement from the police. Further, the statement should confirm the reporting party is subject to an unacceptable level of risk in their home.
In general, the timeline shows the landlord was broadly responsive to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns. For example, it offered to help the resident set up a noise monitoring app in September 2021. In April 2022, it signposted the resident to additional support services in the area. Subsequently, in January 2023, the landlord expressed a desire to help the resident obtain evidence in a way that fit his personal circumstances. Overall, this confirms the landlord was engaged with the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns throughout the timeline.
However, the landlord’s performance could have been better. For example, its records show the landlord was concerned about the resident’s welfare following a call in late September 2021. Nevertheless, there was no indication it took any related action until the resident called again on 11 November 2021. It is reasonable to conclude that, during the initial call, the landlord could have asked the resident if he needed any additional support. It could have then signposted him to any relevant agencies accordingly.
It was also noted it took up to 5 months for the landlord to provide an outcome following its welfare visit to the resident in late 2021. This calculation was based on the period between 16 November 2021 and 11 April 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen any information to suggest the landlord has an applicable response timescale. Nevertheless, the above represents an unreasonable timeframe given the resident’s circumstances. The timeline shows the resident chased the landlord a number of times during this period.
It is reasonable to conclude that chasing the landlord unnecessarily was inconvenient for the resident. No information was seen to show the resident was kept updated about the progress of his case. Overall, the above shows there was service failure by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. This is a proportionate finding given the landlord was broadly mindful of the resident’s individual circumstances throughout the timeline.
In addition, there was no information to suggest the landlord would have reached a different outcome if it had progressed the resident’s welfare case faster. That said, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have helped the resident by signposting to relevant support agencies in September 2021. The Ombudsman will award the resident proportionate compensation to address any distress or inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, its stage 2 response in early 2023 said the Ombudsman’s initial contact with the landlord was in April 2022. In contrast, the timeline suggests we first became involved in September 2021. In any case, the evidence confirms the landlord’s stage 2 response contained incorrect information. However, the details were important because the landlord should have considered its own complaint handling, over the resident’s full complaint journey, as part of its investigation.
Had it done this, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord would have identified the ASB case handling issues that occurred around September 2021. Further, it could have attempted to put things right for the resident. This would have likely avoided our above maladministration finding. In addition, the landlord also missed an earlier opportunity to identify the same issues. For example, in mid-October 2021 we relayed the resident’s comments about supporting photographs to the landlord. Its subsequent correspondence, issued within days, confirms the landlord responded to our intervention.
Nevertheless, the landlord failed to address the evidence related concerns that were raised through the Ombudsman. As a result, these concerns were also overlooked at the point they were raised. Again, it is reasonable to conclude the situation could have been avoided if the landlord had contacted the resident to clarify his complaint following the Ombudsman’s intervention. Instead, its response on 19 October 2021 appeared to be based on the parties’ previous pattern of activity. This was because it did not reference any new evidence from the resident. This represents an inappropriate level of engagement from the landlord.
The timeline shows the landlord did not attempt to clarify the resident’s concerns until around 6 May 2022. On that basis, the evidence points to a complaint handling delay of around 7 months. The information seen suggests the resident subsequently declined to respond to a number of the landlord’s requests for clarification around this time. It is reasonable to conclude this hampered the landlord’s complaint investigation. Ultimately, it is likely that the above identified complaint handling errors reduced the landlord’s chances of successfully resolving matters through its own internal complaints procedure.
For clarity, the Ombudsman considers complex complaints unsuitable for informal handling. In this case, the landlord initially told us the resident’s concerns were handled as an expression of dissatisfaction rather than a formal complaint. It is accepted the landlord previously set the resident’s expectations in March 2020. However, complaint handling standards have improved significantly since 2021. As a result, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to adopt a similar approach to its current cases. In general, the landlord should not raise barriers between residents and its formal complaints process.
In summary, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. Due to an inappropriate lack of engagement, the landlord failed to address concerns the resident raised through the Ombudsman in 2021. This resulted in a delay of around 7 months. It is reasonable to conclude this was distressing for the resident. Later, the landlord failed to consider the full complaint timeline and its stage 2 response contained incorrect information.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns.

Reasons

The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s September 2021 report that the neighbour had thrown a glass object. For example, there was no indication it attempted to discuss the incident with the neighbour or any other parties who were present. This was inappropriate given the severity of the incident. The landlord subsequently failed to put things right for the resident.
Due to an inappropriate lack of engagement, the landlord failed to address concerns the resident raised through the Ombudsman in 2021. This resulted in a complaint handling delay of around 7 months. It is reasonable to conclude this was distressing for the resident. Later, the landlord failed to consider the full complaint timeline and its stage 2 response contained incorrect information.
Though it was concerned about the resident’s welfare in September 2021, there was no indication the landlord took any related action at this point. It could have reasonably signposted him to relevant support agencies at this point. It also took up to 5 months to provide an outcome following a welfare visit to the resident. This was an unreasonable timeframe given the circumstances. The resident chased the landlord a number of times during this period.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in the this report. The apology should recognise that the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s ASB report in September 2021. It should also acknowledge the landlord’s failures to engage with the resident’s related complaint, or consider its own complaint handling over the full complaint journey. It should also acknowledge the landlord could have done more in respect of the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the letter/call notes within 4 weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £575 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £275 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s ASB handling.
2. £75 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns.
3. £225 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. The landlord is free to deduct any amount it has already paid from the £175 it previously awarded during its own internal complaints procedure.
The landlord to update the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks. The update should confirm the landlord’s current position on the neighbour dispute and the options available to the resident. It should also confirm the status of the resident’s new complaint from June 2023. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a copy of the update within 4 weeks.
The landlord to share the report’s key findings with it ASB and complaint handling staff for learning and improvement purposes within 4 weeks. The landlord should share a copy of its relevant internal communication with the Ombudsman. The landlord should focus on the broad learnings that can be applied to other cases.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks.