Peabody Trust (202228714)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228714

Peabody Trust

25 April 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 is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a one bedroom flat on the third floor. There are no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident has reported ASB, drug use and noise nuisance coming from a resident who lives directly below her since approximately 2018. The landlord has taken several actions historically, including issuing approximately 7 warning letters. An acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) was also signed by the neighbour in March 2021. When the behaviour continued, a closure order was obtained in June 2021 for a period of 3 months. Upon the resident’s return to the property, there were further intermittent reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
On 26 January 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour had made threats to kill via a third party. He had allegedly informed the caretaker “I am going to murder the lady who lives above me”. The resident reported that she felt intimidated and she was staying away from the property with friends. The landlord opened an ASB case the same day.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman in March 2023 and said she was not getting a satisfactory response from the landlord about her concerns. The landlord was asked to address the resident’s concerns through its formal complaint process, and a stage 1 response followed on 18 May 2023. The landlord said that it had agreed that there had been a breakdown in communication, but felt it had followed its ASB procedure and was liaising with partner agencies appropriately. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated and said it had plenty of evidence to take action based on past incidents. She also asked it to consider moving her.
The landlord issued a final response on 6 July 2023. It acknowledged that there had been a lack of victim support, poor communication and a “misunderstanding of events”. It said it had taken steps to improve her experience and had learnt it needed to do more to “get the basics right”, so would be implementing a new ASB procedure to improve its service in the future. It offered her £1,700 in compensation, equivalent to £50 for each week she had been staying with friends and £150 for the failures in its complaint handling.
In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident advised that despite assurances made in the landlord’s final response, its communication has not improved. She advised noise nuisance from her neighbour continues to be intermittent but she has received no recent updates from the landlord and she feels unsupported.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

This assessment is based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. It may help to explain the scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be time-limited in relation to when a complaint was brought to the landlord’s attention. It is noted that the resident has reported ASB from her neighbour since approximately 2018 and a number of ASB cases have been opened and closed since this time. This assessment is largely focussed on the events from January 2023 onwards, which is the date from which the resident raised new reports of ASB and which prompted her formal complaint.
It is acknowledged that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to explain that the role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about how the landlord responded to reports of ASB and noise. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the resident’s neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it aims to respond to reports of ASB within 2 working days. In this case, there is no evidence that prompt discussions took place with the resident following her reports on 23 January 2023 which was unreasonable. Contrary to the landlord’s ASB policy, there is no evidence that it adopted a victim centred approach, completed a risk assessment matrix (RAM) or referred the resident to support in a timely manner, despite the requirement being highlighted as an action during a multi-agency meeting that took place on 31 January 2023.
The multi-agency meeting was arranged promptly following the resident’s ASB case being opened which was appropriate. Discussing the case in depth with its partner agencies was an opportunity for the landlord to consider the history of the case against the current situation, and formulate a plan of action to support the resident. It was important that the landlord followed up on any actions agreed in the meeting to demonstrate that it was taking the matter seriously.
In addition to completing a RAM, the landlord agreed to send out letters to the block to encourage reporting of ASB and to engage with its legal team to see what options were available to it. The landlord should have appropriate mechanisms in place to record any interventions it has undertaken to tackle ASB. Although the landlord said it was “confident” actions had taken place alongside its stakeholders within its complaint responses, it is unclear from its records how and when it did so, which demonstrated insufficient record keeping.
The landlord’s records show that the neighbour had received several “final warnings” in the past. This demonstrates that the landlord was aware that there were significant concerns about the neighbour’s behaviour and it was therefore important that it monitored the situation closely and gave consideration as to whether it should escalate the matter to tenancy enforcement stage. It was appropriate that the landlord did not disclose the outcome of every conversation it had with the neighbour, as some of the actions it had taken were subject to data protection. However it was not proactive in its general communication with the resident, causing her evident frustration and distress.
The landlord’s failures to maintain regular contact with the resident is highlighted in an email dated 16 February 2023 in which she informs the landlord that it failed to contact her the previous week as it had agreed. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to her concerns about its lack of contact, which was unreasonable. As a result, the resident approached the Ombudsman for support in March 2023.
Evidence points to failures in the landlord’s record keeping. For example, on 21 April 2023 the landlord noted that it had “spoken to the tenant”, but it did not record any detail of the discussion that took place, note any advice it gave her or any actions it had agreed. This was inappropriate and has further hindered the landlord’s ability to demonstrate clearly what actions it took to support the resident and monitor the situation.
Some of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance relate to banging noises, particularly when the neighbour returned home late at night and slammed his doors. The landlord’s ASB policy makes it clear that it will not investigate “lifestyle differences” including noise occurring at unusual times because of different working patterns. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise Complaints explains that where noise reports do not meet the statutory threshold, then landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct from its ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbour relationships. This should include mediation, which should be offered to residents at the earliest opportunity in an attempt to establish a mutual understanding of each other’s lifestyles. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord explored this possibility.
It is understood that the prospect of living in close proximity to the neighbour caused the resident considerable worry and distress. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to her dissatisfaction that the landlord did not offer her a move away from the property. The landlord’s priority move panel guidance explains that it will consider cases at a weekly panel, only in “emergency and exceptional” circumstances and where supporting evidence exists that a resident is in considerable risk of harm. As explained above, the landlord failed to obtain a full understanding of the risk posed to the resident by its lack of use of a RAM. There is also no evidence that the landlord was explicit with the resident about whether it felt she met the criteria for a move at the earliest opportunity to manage her expectations. An order has been made for the landlord to discuss with the resident her move options.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 18 May 2023 lacked empathy and understanding of the situation. It referred to the resident’s decision to stay away from the property as her “personal choice” which was insensitive given that there is little to demonstrate that it had adopted a victim centred approach and provided the resident with appropriate support at an earlier opportunity. For example, a referral to support services was not made until 4 July 2023, 6 months after her initial report. The delay was inappropriate and demonstrated a lack of urgency to ensure the resident was adequately supported.
The resident has said that she felt that the landlord had ample evidence to take further action against the neighbour based on the number of incidents that had happened in the past. It is understood that the nature of ASB and noise nuisance can change over time, as is evidenced by the resident’s communication on 10 May 2023 that the situation at the time was “relatively calm”. Although it is accepted that the behaviour was at times intermittent, it was still important that the landlord continually review all supporting evidence available to it periodically whilst the ASB case was open. In this case, the landlord did not go far enough to manage the resident’s expectations about what further action it could take about the recent events where there was limited supporting third party evidence of a breach of tenancy.
Key to the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is strong partnerships with the police, local authorities and appropriate support agencies. Although the landlord was in contact with its partners as is evidenced by a joint door knocking exercise that took place in March 2023, it was delayed in seeking formal disclosure from the police about the neighbour. Records show that it was not until 3 May 2023 that it asked the police for this information. Furthermore the landlord has not recorded what the outcome of the police disclosure was. It is therefore difficult to establish whether the landlord had reviewed all evidence available to it to aid its decision on whether to take further action against the neighbour.
Aspects of the landlord’s complaint response refer to the resident’s decision to decline noise monitoring equipment which would assist it in being able to gather further evidence to establish if the noise she had reported was unreasonable. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had refused to support the landlord in its investigations, rather that she was not staying at the property in order to be able to use it. The landlord placed the onus back on the resident to reconsider whether to accept the equipment, rather than explore what it could do to encourage her to return to and feel safe at the property, which was unreasonable.
It is recognised that the situation has caused the resident distress as she has experienced ASB and noise nuisance over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact on her mental wellbeing. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident would have been feeling apprehensive, worried and distressed about the behaviour of her neighbour. Unlike a court we cannot establish whether the incidents caused a decline in health, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. However where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s final complaint response acknowledged it had failed to communicate regularly with the resident and had not offered her appropriate support, which was contradictory to its comments that it was “pleased to report that the case had been handled in a satisfactory manner” since January 2023. This statement was confusing and did not make clear whether the landlord was fully understanding of the extent of its case handling failures. It did however accept that the resident had experienced time, trouble and inconvenience in the handling of its ASB case which was reasonable.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In this case, the landlord assured the resident that it had learnt from her complaint and would put in place a more robust ASB procedure to support victims, which was appropriate. It also offered the resident a single point of contact and made assurances that she would be contacted by 13 July 2023 to discuss her move options. This was reasonable and demonstrated that it had considered a plan of action to improve its communication with the resident. The £1,700 that it offered the resident was above the upper limits of compensation specified within its policy, and would have been sufficient to put matters right for the resident at the time.
However records show that after the final response, the landlord continued to make the same mistakes. There is no evidence of contact made by 13 July 2023 and the resident had to chase the landlord on at least 3 occasions for an update throughout August 2023. This demonstrates that the landlord failed on its promise to the resident and did not put in place robust enough measures to monitor her ASB case. Furthermore, the most recent ASB procedure the landlord provided the Ombudsman is dated 2 March 2022, which suggests that it was not updated following the outcome of the resident’s complaint, despite assurances made that it would do so.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. There is limited evidence that it adopted a prompt victim-centred approach and it did not complete a RAM despite it being highlighted as required within its multi-agency meetings. The landlord’s record keeping was inadequate. It failed to maintain regular contact with the resident to manage her expectations and communicate an action plan throughout the handling of her case. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the landlord acted on assurances it made to improve its ASB service following the conclusion of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s associated complaint handling

When receiving a complaint that references ASB or noise, it is important that the landlord distinguish whether the resident is complaining about the issue itself, or the handling of the landlord’s ASB case. The danger of not recognising the difference can lead to a delay of formally investigating the matter as a complaint. In this case, it is unclear from the landlord’s records when the resident first approached it to make a complaint. As a result, the Ombudsman had to intervene and reiterate the resident’s concerns on her behalf on 16 April 2023.
In accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy, a stage 1 response was due 10 working days later. However the landlord did not respond to the resident until 18 May 2023, which was unreasonable. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay which was inappropriate.
Within its response, the landlord explained to the resident that in order to investigate her complaint, it had reviewed its systems and discussed the case with colleagues which was reasonable. However it failed to discuss the resident’s concerns with her directly prior to providing its response, which did not demonstrate that it had acted fairly. By failing to discuss the complaint with the resident, it missed an opportunity to ensure that it had fully captured and understood the full nature of her concerns.
As a result, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 31 May 2023. Again the landlord did not contact the resident directly to discuss her concerns and reasons for dissatisfaction. Its response relied on cross–referencing internal documents and by failing to discuss the complaint further with the resident, it missed an opportunity to adopt a fairer, more customer-focussed approach.
There was a slight delay in responding to the resident within the expected time frame, yet the landlord made no apology for this within its final response. Whilst it acknowledged that there had been a service failure within its complaint handling, it did not explain what it considered the failure to be or what learning it had taken. For example, under the heading “complaint learning”, it referred to changes it intended to make to its ASB process, but nothing specific to its complaint handling. The landlord did however make a reasonable offer of £150 which was within the “moderate failure” limit in accordance with its compensation policy.
Overall there was a service failure within the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. It failed to contact the resident directly prior to issuing both complaint responses and missed an opportunity to gain a full understanding of her concerns from her perspective. Whilst it compensated the resident appropriately for her time and trouble, it missed an opportunity to reflect on what specific service improvements it could make with regards to its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures noted within this report.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £2,000 in compensation The compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The amount is comprised of:
1. £1,700 it offered the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process on 6 July 2023, if not already paid.
2. An additional £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports.
3. An additional £50 for the time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to understand her recent concerns. When doing so, it should complete a RAM and action plan as appropriate. It should follow up the discussion in writing and include suitable advice with regards to her move options.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to conduct a full review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. The outcome of the review to be shared with the Ombudsman within 6 weeks. The review must include:
1. a review of its staff guidance, to assist with identifying the difference between a report of ASB or noise, and a complaint about the landlord’s handling of an ASB or noise case.
2. a review of its training to staff on its ASB policy and procedure, with particular focus on the use of the RAM and action plans.
3. a review of its process for obtaining police disclosure, ensuring that evidence of requests and responses are held and monitored on its systems appropriately
4. an analysis of its management oversight on ASB cases, with particular focus on recording actions, outcomes and case closure decisions. In doing so, the landlord should have due regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management.
5. a review of the landlord’s complaint process, to include steps to ensure direct contact is made with complainants prior to issuing formal responses. In doing so, the landlord should have due regard to the new Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which became a statutory requirement on 1 April 2024.