From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Peabody Trust (202304274)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304274

Peabody Trust

22 April 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 the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour between November 2022 and May 2024.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. Her tenancy started in 2009. The property is a 2–bedroom flat in a block. The neighbour lived in the flat directly above the resident.
  2. In November 2022 the resident reported continuous banging in the neighbour’s property, which she advised was having an impact on her. She said this was happening every day and being done deliberately. The landlord opened an ASB case. Over the next 5 months it spoke to the neighbour, sent them a warning letter, and facilitated mediation between the parties.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 April 2023. She said she had been asking for a call back about the case for several months, but only received an email. She felt the landlord was not treating her fairly or properly supporting her.
  4. In early June 2023 the landlord told the resident there was no evidence to take action against the neighbour. A multi-agency meeting took place the same month and it was agreed the resident’s ASB case would be closed due to lack of evidence. A case closure letter was sent to the resident later that month.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 22 June 2023 said it was satisfied it had properly investigated the matter and taken appropriate actions.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 28 June 2023. She said there had been a lack of communication and delays in the landlord responding to her. She did not believe it had taken enough action and felt it had disregarded evidence of the noise. She said the matter was negatively affecting her and her children’s mental health.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 1 August 2023. It said it needed evidence of the ASB to be able to take action. It acknowledged there had been communication failures and delays; which meant it had not acted in line with its ASB policy. It advised this did not impact the final outcome. It apologised and offered £175 compensation (£100 for the ASB handling failures and £75 for delays in its complaint handling).
  8. The landlord opened a new ASB case in mid-August 2023, following a report from the resident about ongoing loud banging noise by the neighbour, in the early hours of the morning. She also subsequently reported that the neighbour was aggressive and threatening towards her and racially abusive.
  9. Between September 2023 and February 2024 the landlord took the following actions in response to the ASB reports:
    1. Liaised with the Police and other support services.
    2. Spoke to the neighbour.
    3. Made enquiries with other residents.
    4. Completed a risk assessment and submitted a priority move application for the resident, which was declined.
  10. On 24 January 2024 the resident made a second complaint to the landlord about its handling of her ASB reports. She said she was not happy that her priority move application had been refused as she was high risk and should be a priority. She felt neglected and unsupported by the landlord.
  11. The landlord’s second stage 1 response of 13 February 2024 said it was satisfied it had managed the case appropriately. It advised there was not enough evidence to prove a statutory nuisance.
  12. Seven days later, the resident asked to escalate her second complaint to stage 2. The next day she said she was not happy with how the landlord had handled her case as it had delayed in taking action. She asked for compensation to start putting things right.
  13. In February 2024 the landlord completed a sound test in the resident’s property. In April 2024, it submitted an appeal for her priority move application, which was declined.
  14. The landlord sent its second stage 2 response on 2 May 2024. This said the complaint was partially upheld as it had failed to complete some actions in the timeframes set out in its ASB policy and procedure. It confirmed the ASB case handling and communication was not at the expected standard. However, it believed the actions it had taken were appropriate and proportionate, and it had engaged with various agencies to support the resident. It apologised and offered £400 compensation (£300 for the ASB handling failures and £100 for delays in its complaint handling).
  15. Later that month, following a call with the resident, the landlord reviewed the compensation offered. It made an increased offer of £1,200 (£1,100 for ASB handling failures and £100 for delays in its complaint handling). The resident asked us to investigate her complaint in January 2025. She said the landlord had not taken enough action and had not taken her concerns seriously.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said she has been reporting ASB to the landlord for at least 5 years, and that previous actions were taken from at least 2020 onwards. As part of the investigation of the first formal complaint the landlord assessed its handling of the issue from November 2022 onwards. This was 6 months before the first formal complaint was logged in May 2023.
  2. This was reasonable as it was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy at the time, which said it would not investigate matters as a complaint that had happened more than 6 months ago. Therefore, the scope of our investigation covers the same period. Anything that happened before November 2022 is considered for context but not assessed as part of this investigation.
  3. The resident has reported the ASB continued after the second stage 2 response of May 2024, and that it is ongoing to date, despite a new neighbour moving in to the property above in around July 2024. This has resulted in the landlord taking further actions and, in a third stage 1 response in March 2025, the landlord set out what actions it will take going forward.
  4. We can only investigate matters which have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Therefore, the scope of our investigation covers events up to the landlord’s increased offer of compensation on 13 May 2024. Anything that happened after this date is considered for context but not assessed as part of this investigation. As we are not assessing the landlord’s live handling of this issue, we have not commented on the proposed actions.
  5. The resident has also reported this matter has negatively affected her and her children’s mental health. We do not doubt the resident, but we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her family’s ill-health. She can seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that they have been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we have considered any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

The resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour between November 2022 and May 2024

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy said that repeated, prolonged, high level noise nuisance was considered ASB. As the resident reported the noise was happening daily at unsocial hours and being done deliberately, it was appropriate the landlord recorded this as ASB and investigated it as such. The resident also reported verbal and racial abuse, as well as threatening behaviour; which the landlord’s ASB policy confirmed was considered ASB.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy said once a new ASB case was allocated, it would make contact with the resident within 1 working day and agree an action plan within 5 working days. We have seen no evidence the landlord met these timescales for either of the cases logged in November 2022 or August 2023. This was disappointing for the resident and meant she was left chasing for contact and updates about the cases.
  3. When the cases were opened in November 2022 and August 2023 the landlord noted these had been assessed as high risk. Its ASB policy at the time said it would triage cases to determine the immediate level of risk, which it did on both occasions. However, there is no evidence that anything was done in response to these assessments. This is a concern and meant the resident was left unsupported by the landlord in a situation it had acknowledged was high risk.
  4. The landlord’s ASB policy said it would complete a formal risk assessment at the first point of contact and periodically during the investigation. There is evidence an assessment was completed in November 2023, but this was 3 months after the second ASB case had been opened. There is no evidence any other formal risk assessments were completed prior to this, or during the 7 month period the first ASB case was open. This means the landlord did not act in line with its ASB policy and failed to properly consider the resident’s repeated concerns that this issue was negatively affecting her mental health.
  5. Despite not completing a formal risk assessment, the landlord did refer the resident for support with another landlord department in April 2023, engaged with external support services from May 2023 onwards and arranged a multi-agency meeting in June 2023. These were positive actions.
  6. However, these happened more than 5 months after the landlord had assessed the matter was high risk as part of the triage process. Further, they only happened in response to the resident reporting her mental health had reached crisis point. This was disappointing for her. The landlord should have considered her support needs sooner, through the completion of a formal risk assessment at the start of the case. Its failure to do so meant the resident felt unsupported and let down by it. We note the landlord has had a recent discussion with the resident in March 2025, about her support needs, which is positive.
  7. The landlord took reasonable actions to investigate the resident’s ASB reports. This included speaking with the neighbour and other residents, completing a sound test and a surveyor’s inspection. While reasonable actions, there were delays in it progressing some of these.
  8. Considering the type of noise reported it would have been sensible for the landlord to visit the neighbour as early as possible. This would enable it to assess the type of flooring and offer advice on reducing noise transference. However, there is no evidence the landlord did this or considered this in the early stages of the first ASB case. Despite the resident specifically asking the landlord to do this in May 2023, there is no record that it did. It was not until February 2024 that it visited to investigate the level of noise transference by completing a sound test. This was 15 months after the first ASB case was opened and should have been done much sooner.
  9. The landlord has said that, during the sound test visit in February 2024, it identified a possible building fault but as the attending staff did not have expert knowledge in this area, they could not say what this was. This was reasonable as the staff they were housing management staff and not surveyors. The landlord subsequently asked for a surveyor to assess this, but this request was not made until 2 months later, in April 2024, and only after the resident had escalated her second complaint. The surveyor’s visit was subsequently carried out in June 2024, 4 months after the landlord had identified this was required. This was too long and should have been progressed sooner.
  10. We have seen no record of the outcome of this inspection or any evidence that the resident was told what, if any, action would be taken following it. This was disappointing for her. She has told us that the landlord has recently arranged a second surveyor’s inspection because there is no record of the first one. This is concerning and means the resident will be inconvenienced by having to provide access for a further inspection due to the landlord’s record keeping failure.
  11. The landlord’s ASB policy said it would investigate cases by gathering information from any witnesses within 10 working days of the case being opened. As the resident reported noise nuisance, contacting possible witnesses would have been a sensible action to take.
  12. There is no evidence the landlord did this until February 2024 when it contacted other residents in the block; and this was only after the resident suggested this and provided their details. This was 15 months after the resident first reported the noise and was an unreasonable delay in it investigating her reports. Similarly, the resident reported that a contractor operative attended her property in November 2023 and witnessed noise by the neighbour. There is no evidence the landlord investigated this by contacting them, which would have been sensible.
  13. The landlord told the resident there was not enough evidence to take enforcement action against the neighbour. It is not our role to determine whether the ASB happened or not or whether action should or should not be taken. This is a matter for the landlord to determine and consider in line with its ASB policy. What we have considered is how the landlord communicated with the resident about its decision making and whether this was clear and consistent.
  14. The landlord was consistent in its response that there was insufficient evidence to progress action in relation to the noise. While this was disappointing for the resident, it was important that the landlord told her this so she understood its limitations. This was in line with its ASB policy, which said the landlord should manage expectations and be clear about the limitations of action it could take.
  15. In February 2023 the resident and the landlord were told by the local authority noise team that it had heard some of the noise following the installation of a noise monitor. It described this as “quite loud and unbearable”. While it said it could not take action, it suggested the landlord may be able to assist with this.
  16. Similarly, in an email exchange with a senior member of landlord staff in July 2023, they commented on video evidence provided by the resident and said the noise captured was “very loud and intrusive”. Based on this, it was understandable that the resident believed there was evidence of the noise nuisance, and so it was confusing for her when the landlord repeatedly told her otherwise.
  17. While the landlord consistently told the resident there was not enough evidence to prove a statutory noise nuisance, it would have been helpful to for it to go further and explain why these particular incidents would not meet the required threshold. This would allow the resident to fully understand why the landlord had made this decision.
  18. The local authority noise team said it could not take action because the noise was sporadic and happened for short periods. It is possible this was the landlord’s assessment, but there is no evidence it told her this. This meant she was left feeling that the landlord had disregarded the evidence and was not treating her fairly. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to write to the resident with a detailed explanation of why there was not enough evidence to pursue enforcement action, despite there being evidence of loud banging incidents. 
  19. The landlord took some non-legal actions to resolve the ASB, including facilitating mediation and sending warning letters. These were sensible options to progress and were set out in its ASB policy at the time as possible remedies. This said that mediation was most likely to be successful when it was offered at the early stages of a dispute. In this case, the landlord first suggested mediation in February 2023, which was 3 months after the case had been opened.
  20. Considering the nature of the reports and that there were counter allegations from the neighbour, the landlord should have considered this option sooner. The resident said the delay in the landlord taking action contributed to the conflict between her and the neighbour. As the purpose of mediation is to resolve disputes, it is vital this is offered as early as possible, as confirmed by the landlord’s ASB policy. We cannot say whether offering this earlier would have resolved things, but either way, it should have done more to try to resolve the matter sooner.  
  21. The landlord’s ASB policy at the time set out other actions it could take to help resident’s resolve disputes informally. This included good neighbour agreements and acceptable behaviour contracts. There is no evidence the landlord considered either of these options. Considering the nature of the resident’s reports, that there were counter allegations, and it had said there was insufficient evidence to pursue enforcement action, these would have been sensible options to consider. Its failure to do so was a missed opportunity to possibly resolve the matter sooner.
  22. The resident has said she wants to move because of this issue. We cannot order the landlord to move the resident and it is not our role to assess whether the outcomes of the priority move application and subsequent appeal were correct. What we have considered is how the landlord responded to her requests to move and whether these were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  23. In response to the resident’s requests to move, the landlord provided details about mutual exchange and submitted a priority move application and subsequent appeal. These were reasonable actions to take to support her with this request. It also responded to her request for temporary accommodation in February 2024, by telling her it could not provide it and signposting her to the local authority. While frustrating for the resident, this was a reasonable response as the landlord, a housing association, has no statutory duty to provide temporary accommodation.
  24. We acknowledge that the resident disagrees with the outcome of the priority move application and appeal and that this was disappointing for her. However, the landlord was entitled to reach this conclusion. While entitled to do so, it is important that where these types of decisions are made, a full explanation of why is given, to help the resident understand and be reassured that it has acted fairly.
  25. Despite the resident asking for written confirmation of the outcome of the priority move application in January 2024 and the appeal in May 2024, there is no evidence the landlord provided this during the period of our investigation. We have seen that in March 2025, as part of a third stage 1 response, it confirmed it had declined these because the threshold for approval had not been met.
  26. While positive that it has now confirmed this in writing, it would have been helpful if it had provided some further detail. This is because the resident has challenged the landlord’s decision on the basis that supporting evidence was provided, which set out the negative impact to her mental health linked to her living environment. Therefore, some further detail on why the threshold was not met, would have been helpful for the resident to fully understand its decision making. The delay in providing this and the lack of information has caused the resident to lose trust in the landlord. We note the landlord has committed to look in to this again for the resident, which is positive.
  27. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to write to the resident confirming the specific reasons the priority move application and appeal did not meet the threshold for approval. The landlord should also confirm a timescale for it to reconsider this and what, if any, further evidence it needs from the resident to progress this.
  28. The landlord’s ASB policy at the time said all cases should be monitored every 2 weeks and the resident updated every 4 weeks, or an agreed period. For cases open longer than a month, 4 to 6 weekly case reviews should be carried out. There is no evidence the landlord consistently did this during either of the ASB cases. The resident was in regular contact with the landlord to report issues and submit video evidence. However, contact from the landlord to her was sporadic and often in response to multiple requests from the resident. This meant she incurred significant time and trouble to chase up the landlord and was often left uncertain on what was happening.
  29. Regular case reviews are vital in ASB cases as these ensure that timely progress is made. Regular contact is equally important as this ensures the resident feels supported and reassured that the landlord is taking the matter seriously. As there was no consistency in case reviews or contact, this meant the cases were not progressed in a timely manner and there was a delay in actions being progressed, as set out earlier in this report.
  30. The landlord identified failure in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. It apologised, offered a total of £1,200 compensation over the 2 complaints and identified learning. These are all in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The resident has told us that, despite admitting failure, the landlord has not taken any meaningful action to resolve the situation. She believes it has presented a picture of having supported her but not actually done enough.
  31. We acknowledge this situation has been very distressing for the resident and her children and that the length of time this has been ongoing has exacerbated things. We cannot determine that this matter would have been resolved had the failures identified not occurred. Similarly, the fact that the issues are ongoing does not automatically indicate failure on the landlord’s part. Instead, in deciding whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events.
  32. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  33. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and in consultation with our remedies guidance; the redress offered for the period of our investigation was appropriate. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of her reports of ASB by a neighbour between November 2022 and May 2024.
  34. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to pay the resident the £1,200 compensation already offered, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. 
  35. The resident has said she does not believe the landlord will ever resolve this matter. Considering the length of time this has been ongoing and its past failures, this is understandable. We note the landlord set out actions taken and planned, in a third stage 1 response sent in March 2025, which is positive.
  36. However, this did not include a timescale for the actions to be completed or confirmation of how often contact would be made. This information would be helpful to reassure the resident that it was taking the matter seriously and committed to resolving this issue. Therefore, a recommendation is made for the landlord to write to the resident confirming the current action plan, with timescales for actions to be completed and how regularly it will contact her for updates.

Complaint handling

  1. When the resident made her first complaint to the landlord on 20 April 2023, it logged this as a ‘service recovery’ case. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would deal with issues under its service recovery process that were follow-ups on service requests and could be dealt with “there and then”. It gave an example of this as a missed appointment, which could be resolved with an apology and by providing another appointment.
  2. As the resident’s complaint was about the handling of her ASB case and required investigation, it was incorrect of the landlord to log this as a service recovery. It should have logged it as a stage 1 complaint. This was a complaint handling failure that amounts to maladministration.
  3. When the service recovery case was logged, it was passed to a senior member of staff to investigate and respond. However, there is no record that any action was taken in respect of the case, despite the resident chasing it up on at least 4 occasions in April and May 2023. This amounts to maladministration.
  4. The landlord only progressed the complaint on 19 May 2023, after a fifth contact from the resident, via us, the day before. At this point, the landlord logged and acknowledged the stage 1 complaint. This is what it should have done when the complaint was first made the previous month.
  5. The first stage 1 complaint was logged and acknowledged 19 working days after the original complaint was made. This was not in line with the 5 working day committed timeframe set out in its complaints policy at the time. This amounts to maladministration and made the resident feel the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously.
  6. The landlord sent its first stage 1 response on 22 June 2023. This was 23 working days after the complaint was logged, and 42 working days after the resident made the complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time said it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of receipt, which it failed to do. This amounts to maladministration.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request for the first complaint on 10 July 2023. This was 9 working days after she first asked to escalate the complaint, on 28 June 2023; and only happened because she chased it up on at least 1 occasion. It sent the first stage 2 response 35 working days after the initial escalation request, which was over the 20 working day committed response time, set out in its complaints policy at the time. This amounts to maladministration.
  8. The landlord logged the resident’s second stage 1 complaint on 31 January 2024. This was 5 working days after the complaint was raised and in line with the 5 working day committed timescale, set out in its complaints policy at the time. It sent the second stage 1 response in 14 working days, which was over the 10 working day committed response time. This was a minor delay.
  9. Despite the resident asking to escalate her second complaint on 20 February 2024, the landlord did not progress or acknowledge this until 33 working days later, on 9 April 2024. As part of the acknowledgement it apologised and explained the reasons for the delay, which was sensible.
  10. The landlord sent the second stage 2 response on 2 May 2024. This was 50 working days after the resident first asked to escalate the complaint. This was more than double the committed 20 working day response time, set out in its complaints policy at the time. During this period of delay, the landlord provided one update to the resident, on 16 April 2024, to tell her it needed more time.
  11. This was in line with its complaints policy, which said it would tell the resident if it needed more time and give a clear timeframe for when it would respond. It confirmed this should not exceed a further 10 working days. However, the landlord did not do this consistently during the period of delay and the overall time taken exceeded the maximum 30 working day timescale, set out in its complaints policy at the time. This amounts to maladministration and caused the resident to lose faith in the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  12. The landlord acknowledged failure in its complaint handling as part of the stage 2 responses for the first and second complaints. It apologised and offered a total of £175 compensation. Considering the full circumstances of the case and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the redress offered is insufficient. Therefore a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation, inclusive of the £175 already offered, if not done so already.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of her reports of ASB by a neighbour between November 2022 and May 2024.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has paid the resident £300 compensation for its complaint handling (inclusive of the £175 already offered, if not done so already).

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Write to the resident providing:
      1. A detailed explanation of why there was not enough evidence to pursue enforcement action against the neighbour, despite there being recordings of loud banging incidents.
      2. The specific reasons her priority move application and appeal did not meet the threshold for approval. The landlord to confirm a timescale for it to reconsider this and what, if any further evidence it needs from the resident to progress this. 
      3. Confirmation of the current action plan, with timescales for actions to be completed and how regularly it will contact her for updates. 
    2. Pay the resident the £1,200 compensation already offered for its handling of her reports of ASB by a neighbour between November 2022 and May 2024, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. 
  2. The landlord to confirm to us its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks.