Peabody Trust (202222376)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222376

Peabody Trust

26 March 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since March 2010. The property is a one bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
3. On 3 August 2022 the landlord recommended that the resident report to the police that a member of the public was using the residents ‘car park and a smell of cannabis was coming from the car. The landlord noted it would look into obtaining a resident parking sign. The resident said that on 30 August 2022, the landlord informed him it had passed his request to install a gate to the car park to the relevant team and would be in touch.
4. 7 November 2022 the resident reiterated to the landlord that a member of the public was using the car park. He described the driver would sit in his car for over an hour and there was a smell cannabis coming from the car. He confirmed that he had reported the matter to the police who explained this was a civil matter. He also provided photos of the car.
5. The resident contacted this service for support. He explained that in July 2022 and August 2022, he made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of repairs in the property but received no response. He also said that the landlord had not responded to his ASB reports.
6. On 3 January 2023 we asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 17 January 2023 and said:
   1. It raised a formal complaint about multiple issues raised by the resident, which included its handling of his ASB reports.
   2. It had recommended that the resident report the matter to the police. In November 2022 the police said this was a civil matter.
   3. It liaised with its repair team to request installing a gate.
   4. It apologised for the lack of communication about the issues raised and the inconvenience this caused. It offered to pay £100 compensation to the resident to reflect the time and trouble he experienced chasing the matter. This was in relation to repairs and ASB.
7. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 16 June 2023 because the issues remained unresolved. On 6 September 2023 we confirmed to the resident that we asked his landlord to respond to his stage 2 complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 20 September 2023 and said:
   1. It acknowledged that it had not responded to the resident’s reports of ASB in keeping with its ASB policy and apologised to the resident.
   2. It agreed to note the nature of the ASB, complete a risk vulnerability assessment to determine whether the case is an ASB case, decide on what actions to take within 15 days and review the action plan within a month.
   3. It acknowledged and apologised for its complaint handling failings. It offered to pay £600 compensation to the resident. It said this was equivalent to £350 for time and trouble and £250 to reflect the impact of its complaint handling failings. The compensation was in relation to its handling of the resident’s ASB reports and repairs.
   4. It shared the lessons learnt from the complaint and actions it took to prevent further failings.
8. On 13 October 2023 the landlord explained to the resident that it had decided not to install an electric gate to the car park. It said that this was because the cost and maintenance of the gate, which would have to be met by the residents via their service charges, was too high. The resident said he then asked the landlord to install a manual gate.
9. The resident informed this service in March 2025 that the issue of members of the public using the car park was ongoing. The landlord informed this service in March 2025 that it had not received any reports of ASB from the resident or his neighbours showing that the issue was ongoing. As a form of resolution, the resident would like the landlord to instal a manual gate and a night spotlight in the car park.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

10. The resident reported that a member of the public was parking in the residents car park and a smell of cannabis would come from the car. While the alleged perpetrator has not been abusive or threatening toward the resident, we recognise the situation has been concerning for him. It may help to first explain that our role is not to decide whether ASB occurred, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports reasonably and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
11. We understand that the landlord is not directly responsible for the ASB. However, the landlord has a duty, under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to respond to ASB reported by its residents with a victim centred approach.
12. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines the steps it will take to investigate the ASB reports it receives. It says that it will promptly respond to ASB and adopt a victim centred approach when dealing with the issues. On receipt of a report, it will assess the risks presented to the residents and ensure the right level of support is provided. It will agree an action plan with the residents and provide them with regular updates. It says that it will inform the residents when closing the case and explain its reasons for doing so. It also describes how it will work in partnership with relevant agencies such as the police.
13. The landlord’s parking policy came into effect in April 2023. It says that it would try resolving parking issues before introducing parking control measures. It explained that it would consider introducing those if a resident requested it or there was an issue with non-residents using the car park. It elaborates that in such cases, it would usually consult with residents before introducing parking control to tailor it as far as possible to their needs. It also says that if parking was a reoccurring issue, it might introduce parking control without consulting with residents but it would inform them of its plans.
14. In this case, it is unclear when the resident first reported the problem to the landlord. However, the evidence shows that on 3 August 2022, the landlord recommended that the resident report the matter to the police. It also noted that it would look into obtaining a resident’s only parking sign, which was in keeping with its parking policy. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord. It showed it considered the resident’s reports and was taking actions to remedy the problem.
15. However, the landlord did not show it provided updates to the resident or outcomes to the actions it had taken. For example, while the landlord said it would look into getting a resident parking sign, it did not show whether it did or communicated the outcome to the resident. Additionally, the landlord recommended that the resident contact the police but did not show it liaised with the police or the resident for an update about this. This was unreasonable from the landlord. It did not show that it actively investigated the resident’s concerns or took steps to resolve the matter.
16. The landlord did not show it completed a risk assessment in 2022, when then resident reported the problem. Conducting a risk assessment would have allowed the landlord to identify and evaluate the specific risks faced by the resident. By understanding the risks, the landlord would have been in a better position to determine the actions needed to address the issue. It would have also informed the landlord about any offers of support it could have made to the resident. The landlord did not show that it had adopted a victim centred approach in keeping with its ASB policy and the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014. Its failings to assess the risks to the resident was unreasonable and not in keeping with its ASB policy and its obligations as a landlord.
17. An important aspect of dispute resolution is for landlords to keep the promises they make during the complaint process to put things right and rebuild trust with residents. In its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord said that it had requested its repairs team to install a car park gate. The evidence shows that in April 2023 and May 2023, the resident was chasing the landlord for an update on installing the gate. This was approximately 4 months after the landlord said it referred the matter to the relevant team. This was unreasonable from the landlord, its failings to act on its promises caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issue as a complaint.
18. Furthermore, in its stage 1 response it raised the resident’s hope by saying that it would install a car park gate. However, in October 2023, it informed the resident it had decided not to install an electric gate. Whilst it provided a reasonable explanation to the resident for its decision, it did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations during the complaint process. Additionally, it did not explain why it took 10 months to make and share its decision with the resident. This was unfair to the resident who clearly believed the landlord would install a car park gate.
19. The resident said that in October 2023, he asked the landlord to install a manual gate instead of an electric gate. The landlord did not show it responded to his request. Whilst we cannot determine whether the landlord should install a manual gate, we would have expected the landlord to respond to the resident’s request. The landlord’s lack of response caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issue with this service.
20. The landlord informed this service that it had not received complaints from other residents about non-residents using the car park. We also acknowledge that, in keeping with its parking policy, it considered the resident’s request for some parking control measures. However, in October 2023, the landlord said to the resident that if he spoke to his neighbours and they were open to parking control, it would consider doing a consultation with them about it. This was unfair to the resident, the landlord should have sought feedback from other residents itself, instead of delating the task to the resident.
21. We recognised that in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings. It said it would record the ASB, complete a risk assessment, agree an action plan with the resident and review the case. Whilst this was reasonable, the resident informed this service that the landlord did not follow up on those actions. Its failings to carry out the actions it had promised further affected its relationship with the resident. It also caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issue with this service.
22. We recognise the landlord offered to pay £350 compensation to the resident for time and trouble. This was to reflect the impact of its failings in responding to the resident’s ASB reports and repairs at the property. The landlord did not say how much of the compensation related to its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. Therefore, we cannot determine its offer amounted to reasonable redress.
23. We understand the resident would like the landlord to install a night spotlight in the car park. We understand this would make the resident feel safer when using the car park. However, we did not see evidence that he requested this from the landlord. Therefore, we cannot determine there was a failure by the landlord to act on his request and would encourage the resident to raise this directly with the landlord.
24. In summary, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. It did not handle the ASB in keeping with its policy. It did not assess the risk to the resident, keep him updated, manage his expectations or carry out the actions it agreed to do.
25. In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidelines, which are published on the website, we order the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation to reflect its failing in its handling of the ASB reports. This is to acknowledge the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident. This also reflects that the landlord’s failings contributed to the resident’s feeling ignored and the impact on the resident landlord relationship. We also make orders below to ensure that the landlord responds to the outstanding ASB with its policy in mind.

The associated complaint.

26. The Code sets the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. In keeping with the Code, the landlord has a 2 stage complaint policy. It says that it will acknowledge residents’ complaints within 5 working days, respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. It also says that if its needs longer to respond, it will contact the resident to explain the reasons for the delay and provide a new date to respond to the resident’s complaint.
27. In this case, we understand that the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in July 2022 about its handling of the repairs in his property. However, this element of his complaint was resolved prior to our involvement and not considered by this investigation. It is unclear when the residents raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. We recognise that the resident raised the issue with us as a complaint when he contacted us for support.
28. However, as an impartial service we base our decisions on the evidence provided. In this case, we saw no evidence that the resident raised the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports as a formal complaint prior to contacting this service. Therefore, we cannot determine there was a failure by the landlord in responding to this element of his complaint prior to our involvement.
29. On 3 January 2023, we asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint, which included his complaint about the handling of the ASB. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the following day and responded. The evidence shows that it responded to the resident’s complaint 9 days later, which was in keepings with its complaint policy and the Code.
30. The resident then escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 16 June 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response after our involvement. It should not take for this service to get involved for a landlord to respond to a resident’s complaint. This was unreasonable from the landlord and caused inconvenience to the resident.
31. Additionally, the evidence shows that the landlord issued its stage 2 response 48 days outside its published timeframe. The landlord did not show that it discussed with the resident it needed more time to respond. This was unreasonable from the landlord, its actions were not in keeping with its complaints policy or the Code. Its complaint handlings failings caused inconvenience to the resident who had to ask us for support to get a response to his complaint.
32. We recognise that in its stage 2 response the landlord recognised and apologised for its complaint handling failings. It also offered to pay the resident £250 compensation to reflect the impact of its failings on him. We understand this included its failings in handling the resident’s complaint about his ASB reports and repairs at the property.
33. After considering the evidence of the case, it is our opinion that the landlord’s total offer reflected the failings identified. Therefore, the Ombudsman determines that the level of compensation it offered amounts to reasonable redress.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
35. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident in relation to its handling of the associated complaint prior to investigation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This results in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.

Orders and recommendations

36. Within 4 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written and detailed apology to the resident for the failings found in this report.
    2. To pay £200 in compensation directly to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings in handling his ASB reports. This is in addition to the compensation it offered at stage 2 of the complaint process.
    3. To meet with the resident and agree an action plan to address the outstanding ASB issues. The landlord is to share a copy of its action plan with us. Its plan is to include but not limited to:
       1. Completing a risk assessment to understand the impact the ASB has on the resident and determine the support it could offer to the resident.
       2. What actions will be taken and when, including the actions it will take to address the parking issues in keeping with its parking policy.
       3. A timeframe for reviewing its progress.