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

Peabody Trust (202304409)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304409

Peabody Trust

31 January 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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and her tenancy began in 2016. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident has an ongoing dispute with her neighbour. The parties share a communal entrance and hallway. The resident has several vulnerabilities. They include depression, anxiety and a brain injury. It is understood that, due to her injury, she is sensitive to noise and has difficulty processing information. A third-party support agency helped the resident to raise her complaint. Subsequently, in its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord told us it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident in its systems.
  2. The resident’s complaint relates to the landlord’s ASB handling. She feels the landlord has allowed the neighbour to target her since 2019. She has referred to incidents of verbal abuse, physical assaults and deliberate noise. The resident feels the landlord should move one of the parties in the dispute. She also wants an apology and compensation “due to [the landlord’s] inaction”. She says the ASB has had an “unimaginable impact” on her life over the years.
  3. There was an altercation between the parties in December 2022. The police were involved but they did not take any further action against either party. The landlord says it was unable to retrieve some related CCTV footage. It has referred to another CCTV issue that occurred around this time. Subsequently, the resident reported a separate altercation in April 2023. Afterwards, she had several interactions with the landlord about a video doorbell. The landlord felt she was using the device in an intrusive manner. It eventually removed the doorbell on 31 August 2023. The resident complained on the following day.
  4. The resident said the landlord had not taken any action in relation to the ASB. She also said its approach to the doorbell was unfair and she felt unsafe without it. She felt the landlord favoured her neighbour in the dispute. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 20 September 2023. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded her £150 in compensation. The resident escalated her complaint soon afterwards. She felt the landlord had not acknowledged the severity of its failures or their corresponding impact.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 23 October 2023. It did not agree that there were any significant problems with its ASB case handling. Although it identified some additional failures, it did not increase its previous compensation award. Subsequently, it raised additional concerns about the resident’s CCTV equipment. Later, the resident’s caseworker updated the Ombudsman during a phone call in January 2025. They said the neighbour was responsible for some serious ASB incidents in 2024 and the landlord had not taken sufficient action. They broadly reiterated the resident’s preferred outcome to the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence shows the neighbour dispute 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 cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any damage to the resident’s health or wellbeing.
  2. The Ombudsman can assess the appropriateness and adequacy of a landlord’s response to reports of ASB. This includes considering whether a landlord’s response was fair, reasonable and in line with any relevant policies or procedures. We cannot establish whether an individual party is responsible for ASB. As a result, we cannot tell a landlord to take action against neighbours. Similarly, we cannot order a landlord to move a resident to another property.
  3. The scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be limited by various factors. This includes the length of time that has passed since the events in question. Residents must also bring their complaint to the Ombudsman within a reasonable period (usually within 12 months after the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure). In line with our remit and out of fairness to both parties, we have focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s current complaint. Any events that occurred before 1 June 2022 are out of scope for our investigation, as the resident complained to the landlord 15 months later.
  4. The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response to more recent ASB incidents. Her caseworker has highlighted an alleged hate crime that took place in August 2024. They also referenced an alleged assault that took place in October 2024. They have supplied some concerning footage of these incidents. The first incident took place around 10 months after the landlord issued its stage 2 response. In general, landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement. We also require sufficient information to make a full and fair assessment.
  5. Given the above, the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s more recent ASB handling are also out of scope for our investigation. If she remains unhappy, the resident can bring them to the Ombudsman when they have completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

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

  1. The evidence points to an altercation between the resident and the neighbour in December 2022. There is no evidence of any ASB reports for several months prior to this incident. In its subsequent complaint correspondence, from October 2023, the landlord said the altercation related to the block’s bins. It also said the police investigated the matter but they did not take any further action against either party. The landlord also said it tried to obtain CCTV footage of the incident “from the owners of the communal CCTV camera”. However, although it made a timely request for the information, “the contractor” had deleted the footage in error. The resident has not disputed the landlord’s version of events. There is no indication she made a corresponding ASB report to the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s comments about the missing footage are not entirely clear. They suggest it felt a third party was responsible for deleting it. However, it said the footage was from “the communal CCTV camera” and the camera was owned by “the contractor”. This suggests the CCTV was in the block and it was controlled by the landlord’s contractor. Since the contractor was acting as the landlord’s agent, the landlord was responsible for managing its activities. On that basis, the evidence suggests the landlord was ultimately responsible for the error and it should have tried to put things right. This should have included preventative action to ensure there were no further issues with the block’s cameras. This would have been a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
  3. Contrary to the above information, there is no indication the landlord adopted a proactive/preventative approach towards the block’s CCTV at this stage. It later said, in separate complaint correspondence from September 2023, that it was responsible for a different CCTV failure in February 2023. This was around 2 months after it was unable to obtain important evidence relating to the neighbour dispute. There is evidence the landlord was liaising with the police at this time. The landlord said the second CCTV issue related to an obstructed camera in the block. It also said some footage from the camera was unusable. It is concerning the landlord was unable to retrieve evidence relating to ASB.
  4. On 26 April 2023 the resident reported an ASB incident to the landlord. The evidence shows she also called the police. She told the landlord there had been an altercation with the neighbour over a parcel delivery (to the shared communal door). She said the neighbour had blocked the doorway to prevent her from speaking to the delivery driver. She also said the neighbour was “verbally aggressive” towards her. The resident referenced her vulnerabilities in her report. She also offered to provide supporting video footage. Records show the landlord raised an ASB case on the same day. It also sent the resident an acknowledgement. This was swift and effective action by the landlord.
  5. However, the landlord supplied limited evidence about its subsequent actions. Its relevant ASB policy says, “All customers who wish to report an incident of ASB will be assessed for their risk and vulnerability to ensure the appropriate level of support can be provided and any safeguarding issues are identified”. It also says the landlord will agree an action plan with the reporting resident and update them about any actions it takes. There is no indication it took either of these steps. Had it done so, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord would have captured and recorded details of the resident’s vulnerabilities at this point.  It could have also signposted her to any relevant support services. The landlord has not shown that it handled the resident’s ASB case fairly or appropriately.
  6. The landlord’s ASB case notes did include some information. They said the landlord would undertake an urgent review of the block’s CCTV footage. They also said it would complete an action plan if this review found one of the parties was at fault for the altercation. This approach was not consistent with its ASB policy. The landlord did not provide any evidence to show the outcome of the CCTV review. Similarly, it did not supply any information to show the outcome of the resident’s ASB case. This is concerning in the circumstances. Record keeping is a crucial aspect of ASB case management. The landlord should be able to evidence its actions. There is a gap in the evidence at this point.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident about a video doorbell in late May 2023. The correspondence was prompted by a counter allegation from the neighbour. The landlord did not supply a copy of its initial correspondence to the resident. The parties’ subsequent interactions show the neighbour was unhappy because the resident had placed her doorbell on the block’s communal entrance. One of the landlord’s senior managers emailed the resident on 9 June 2023. They said they were aware of the neighbour dispute. However, the landlord did not allow residents to install video doorbells in communal areas. It said the resident could install it on the entrance to her home. The landlord’s other key points were:
    1. The resident should remove the doorbell or the landlord would remove it.
    2. The landlord had installed its own CCTV in the communal areas. The system was fully operational.
    3. The resident should report any incidents so the landlord could review the footage. Any criminal behaviour should also be reported to the police.
    4. The landlord was sorry to hear the resident had been assaulted. The neighbour had denied the allegation. Unless the police charged them, the landlord was unable to take any further action in relation to the incident.
  8. The landlord’s relevant surveillance policy, effective February 2023, can be found on its website. It says residents can install CCTV systems, including doorbell devices, as long as they comply with relevant legislation and guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO guidance can be found on its website. It says people who capture images or audio recordings from outside their property’s boundary must notify people they are using CCTV (for example, by displaying a sign). In addition, among other rules, they must stop recording a person if they object to being recorded. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord was entitled to raise concerns about the resident’s doorbell.
  9. There is evidence that the local authority raised the neighbour dispute during a multi-agency meeting in mid-June 2023. Subsequently, the resident continued to exchange emails with the landlord about her doorbell. The Ombudsman has not seen every email from the exchange. In summary, the resident felt the landlord’s approach to her camera was unfair. On 2 July 2023 the manager said she had not sought its permission to install the device. They also said she had been asked to remove it several times. The manager said they had asked the landlord’s local representative to discuss rehousing and additional support options with her. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
  10. The manager emailed the resident again on 20 July 2023. They said the neighbour dispute was difficult to resolve because both parties had made counter allegations of ASB. They also said the landlord’s contractor had checked the block’s CCTV system and it was working correctly. They offered to appoint a professional mediator to reduce tensions with the neighbour. The manager acknowledged the resident had previously declined this option. They said she could change her mind at any time. They said they would not discuss the doorbell with the resident any more. However, they also said she could raise a formal complaint with the landlord if she was still unhappy. This was a fair and reasonable approach by the landlord in the circumstances.
  11. During their emails to the resident on 2 and 20 July 2023, the landlord’s manager reiterated their previous advice about the location of her video doorbell (that the resident could move it onto her own front door). It is noted this advice did not reflect the ICO’s relevant guidance in full. Subsequent events show the landlord gave the resident inaccurate information. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord should be capable of signposting residents to the correct procedures and guidance. Its approach was concerning in the circumstances.
  12. On 31 August 2023 the landlord removed the resident’s doorbell from her front door. The evidence shows the police were in attendance but the resident was out. The removal was contrary to the landlord’s previous assurances. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was both avoidable and distressing for the resident. The landlord did not provide any evidence to show that it notified her about the removal in advance. This is concerning in the circumstances. The evidence shows that removing the doorbell prompted the resident to complain on the following day. This is understandable given what happened.
  13. The resident complained to the landlord on 1 September 2023. She said she had complained about ASB from the neighbour for years. However, the landlord had not taken sufficient action and she did not feel safe. The resident also said she had supplied supporting evidence to the landlord’s local representative. She felt the representative had not acted on this information. She also felt that they favoured the neighbour in the dispute. With regards to recent events, the resident said the landlord had overlooked her safety and welfare needs when it removed her doorbell camera. Based on her related concerns, she wanted the landlord to rehouse her as soon as possible. She said it was urgent. She also said she had previously tried mediation but it was not successful.
  14. The resident’s caseworker emailed the landlord several days later. The email expanded on her previous complaint. It said the landlord had removed the resident’s doorbell without any prior warning. It also said the landlord’s own CCTV equipment had failed on “multiple occasions”. As a result, the resident felt more at risk due to the landlord’s lack of footage. It also said the doorbell had decreased the level of ASB from the neighbour. However, the neighbour’s behaviour had escalated during the short period since the device had been removed. Due to the ongoing neighbour dispute, the caseworker wanted the resident to be rehoused on health and welfare grounds.
  15. On 20 September 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It addressed the landlord’s ASB handling, faulty CCTV equipment, and the resident’s video doorbell. The landlord agreed with some aspects of the resident’s complaint. It awarded her £150 in compensation to acknowledge what went wrong. Its main points at stage 1 were:
    1. Its local representative had mostly followed the landlord’s ASB procedure. However, the landlord could have offered the resident “more support”. It would pass her case to its newly formed Community Safety Team (CST). The CST would identify any required actions. This would include any “gaps in the level of support”. The landlord partially upheld this aspect of the complaint.
    2. In February 2023 the landlord’s contractor had found the block’s CCTV camera was obstructed. The problem was due to a lack of regular maintenance. The issue was resolved, but the landlord could not use any footage that had been captured while the cameras were blocked (as evidence). The landlord upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
    3. The resident had installed her own camera on the block’s communal door. This was unfair to other residents and visitors. The resident could install her camera on her property’s front door instead. The landlord had arranged to return her camera. The resident should call the police if she felt there was an immediate risk to her safety. The landlord did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
    4. The CST would consider whether the resident met the landlord’s criteria for a management transfer (an urgent internal move). In the meantime, the landlord had supplied internal feedback to its staff about assessing and responding to any support needs. It would also ensure the block’s CCTV was maintained regularly.
  16. Its response shows the landlord had misunderstood the previous chain of events. Based on its misunderstanding, it reiterated that the resident could install the doorbell on her own front door. This advice was not appropriate. It suggests the landlord was not aware that the police had recently participated in removing the device from this position. It is reasonable to conclude the issue stemmed from a record keeping failure. Ultimately, the landlord should have identified its previous error and tried to put things right. Since it did not do this, its response was unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances. Given it had not recorded her vulnerabilities or completed an action plan, the evidence supports the landlord’s conclusions about a lack of support for the resident.
  17. The evidence suggests the resident escalated her complaint on 27 September 2023. The landlord did not provide a copy of her escalation request. It did provide a copy of its corresponding acknowledgement to the resident. The landlord’s email summarised its understanding of her complaint. It shows the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response for several reasons. In summary, she felt it had not acknowledged the severity of its failures or their corresponding impact on her. She also felt its compensation was inadequate and it had not sufficiently addressed her request for an urgent move.
  18. On 23 October 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. For context, it included a history of the neighbour dispute and the landlord’s previous actions. Ultimately, the landlord said it had followed its ASB procedure correctly. It also said it was proportionate to refer the resident to its CST. Overall, it said it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously, investigated them accordingly, and followed up with proportionate actions. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint (it did not change its previous outcome). It did not award any additional compensation. Other key points were:
    1. Over the years the landlord had installed CCTV cameras in the block, issued acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs) to both parties, offered mediation services, engaged with multi-agency meetings, and explored sound insulation measures.
    2. The landlord had recognised the seriousness of the situation. It had also taken action where possible. It was a difficult situation for the landlord to manage. Both parties had made allegations and there was a lack of supporting evidence. From the evidence they had provided, it was difficult for the landlord to attribute blame to either party in the neighbour dispute.
    3. The landlord had acknowledged it could not retrieve some CCTV evidence. The footage related to an ASB incident in December 2022. The landlord felt it could have been used to “progress matters” at this time (presumably it felt the footage may have allowed it to take some form of action under its ASB policy).
    4. The landlord could not see that its previous response had addressed the resident’s allegations around her video doorbell. However, it had explained its approach to the resident several times before the doorbell was removed from the communal entrance. Ultimately, its location was contrary to the landlord’s surveillance policy.
    5. The landlord had addressed the resident’s request for an urgent transfer in its previous response. It had referred the case to a specialist from its CST. It did this because a “fresh approach” was needed. It was aware the specialist had recently contacted the resident. Its complaint investigation showed there was a lack of evidence to support a management transfer for her. It also showed the landlord had contacted the resident about other rehousing options.
    6. The landlord’s compensation award related to a partial lack of support and a failure with the communal CCTV system. It was not intended to address the long–term impact of the ASB on the resident. The landlord felt the award was appropriate in the circumstances. Under its compensation policy, the award was consistent with a service failure that caused “minor disruption” or had resulted in a “low impact”.
  19. The evidence shows there were similar issues with the landlord’s stage 2 response. It did not identify its previous failures around the video doorbell. In addition, it did not acknowledge that it had identified a different CCTV problem at this point. It is noted the resident’s complaint said the landlord’s CCTV had failed on a number of occasions. Given the evidence, it is understandable that she lacked trust in its equipment. Ultimately, the landlord did not recognise the full extent of its failures and it did not do enough to put things right. Its response was unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances. Given its inaccuracies, it is reasonable to conclude the stage 2 response added to the resident’s distress.
  20. The response said there was a lack of evidence to support the resident’s request for a management transfer. Its relevant rehousing policy, effective April 2023, detailed the landlord’s approach to management transfers. It said “for legacy [landlord] customers”, the landlord “will consider a management transfer through [its] Priority Move Panel (PMP)”. It shows the management transfer process is for residents who need to move due to issues such as violence, harassment or hate crime. The resident’s tenancy documents indicate that she is a legacy landlord customer. The policy also shows the management transfer process is for residents who are at deemed to be at serious risk (for example, where threats have been made and they are likely to be carried out). In general, there is usually a high threshold to qualify for a management transfer.
  21. It is noted the police were involved in the neighbour dispute around this time. However, there is no indication that the landlord consulted them about the level of risk to the resident. It is reasonable to conclude that taking this step would have improved the landlord’s decision making. Similarly, there is no indication that the landlord referred the resident’s case to its PMP for guidance. Its rehousing policy suggests it should have done this. Ultimately, the landlord has not shown that it responded to the resident’s management transfer request reasonably and in line with its policy. This is concerning in the circumstances.
  22. The landlord’s CST specialist visited the property with the police in late November 2023. Subsequently, the landlord wrote to the resident about the visit in January 2024. It said the visit related to CCTV cameras that she had placed in the property’s bay windows (presumably they overlooked the parties’ shared hallway). It also said the visit was conducted to establish whether the resident’s 2 cameras were “intrusive and excessive”. The landlord said its own camera covered the same area and the resident’s equipment was intruding on other residents’ right to privacy. It asked her to remove the cameras. It said this would stop further complaints, allow all residents to live in the block without further conflict, and remove the need for regular interventions by the landlord. The evidence suggests the landlord’s approach was reasonable at this point.
  23. However, it is also reasonable to conclude these events could have been avoided if the landlord had signposted the resident to the correct policies and guidance around CCTV usage beforehand. There is no indication it did this. It could have clarified its position and detailed its expectations in its stage 2 response. Ultimately, the evidence shows the landlord gave the resident conflicting information about acceptable CCTV use. This was unfair in the circumstances. The parties supplied little evidence about the landlord’s ASB handling after January 2024. Ultimately, the Ombudsman has not seen sufficient information to assess the landlord’s ASB handling from this point onwards.
  24. In summary, the evidence shows there were problems with the landlord’s ASB handling. It did not take a proactive approach to a CCTV issue in December 2022. Within months, a further CCTV problem occurred and the landlord ultimately accepted that it had failed to maintain the camera regularly. It is reasonable to conclude that the second issue could have been avoided. During the timeline, the landlord repeatedly told the resident that it lacked sufficient evidence to act on her reports of ASB. The above information shows it bears some responsibility for this lack of evidence. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s comments were distressing for the resident in the circumstances.
  25. However, there was no guarantee that the missing CCTV footage would have secured the resident’s preferred outcome (eviction for the neighbour or a management move for the resident). For example, it may have been proportionate for the landlord to issue a written warning to one or both parties based on the contents of the footage. Proportionality is a key consideration in ASB cases. In general, landlords need compelling evidence to pursue the strongest sanctions against a perpetrator of ASB. Compelling evidence includes further action by the police against a perpetrator of ASB. In this case, there is no indication that the police took any further action against the neighbour.
  26. There were further problems when the landlord opened an ASB case for the resident in April 2023. Contrary to its ASB policy, there is no indication the landlord completed a risk assessment or an action plan at this point. The evidence suggests that, as a result, it failed to identify and record the resident’s vulnerabilities, signpost her to relevant support services, or set realistic expectations around the next steps. This was unfair and inappropriate in the circumstances. It is accepted the neighbour dispute has been ongoing for years and the landlord had previously tried various measures to resolve it. However, this did not mean it was entitled to apply its ASB policy selectively (presumably to save time) when it opened a new case. The landlord later acknowledged that it could have done more to support the resident. The evidence supports this conclusion.
  27. Subsequently, there were problems with the landlord’s ASB record keeping and it repeatedly gave the resident inaccurate information about her video doorbell. Although it later upheld aspects of her complaint and awarded her £150 in compensation, the landlord did not identify the full extent of its failures. As a result, it did not do enough to put things right. The evidence suggests that record keeping failures caused it to misunderstand the relevant chain of events. The resident was adversely impacted by the landlord’s misinterpretation. It is reasonable to conclude its stage 2 response added to her distress.
  28. The landlord also missed opportunities to clarify its position and set the resident’s expectations around acceptable CCTV usage. Had it done this, it may have avoided subsequent problems with the location of her cameras (following its stage 2 response). It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s related actions, including its joint visit to the property with the police in November 2023, may have caused avoidable distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  29. The landlord has not shown that it responded to the resident’s request for a management transfer reasonably and in line with its policy. This is concerning given the nature of the neighbour dispute and the resident’s vulnerabilities. In mitigation, the evidence shows the police and the local authority were involved in her case during the period in question (from June 2022 until January 2024). There is no indication that the landlord overlooked any safety or welfare related recommendations from either of these bodies during this time. Overall, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord should have arranged a management transfer for the resident.
  30. Overall, the landlord’s ASB handling was unfair, unreasonable and inappropriate at various points. Given its accumulated failures, the evidence shows there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident some additional compensation. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s relevant compensation policy, effective April 2023, and our own guidance on remedies. It also reflects the mitigating circumstances in this case.
  31. The landlord’s applicable compensation policy shows it can award up to £600 in compensation if it is responsible for service failures that caused “extensive disruption” to a resident. This level of award involves “a high impact and a high effort to resolve, and/or extended time to complete actions, and failure to communicate or follow procedure”. Based on this wording, the evidence shows the landlord’s “extensive disruption” category is relevant to the resident’s case.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident complained to the landlord on 1 September 2023. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 20 September 2023. This was 13 working days later. Its relevant complaints policy, effective October 2022, shows the landlord must log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at stage 1. It should then issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days afterwards. This approach is consistent with the applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint handling Code (‘the Code’), as published in March 2022. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord issued its stage 1 response in line with its relevant policy and the Code. This was appropriate complaint handling by the landlord.
  2. The evidence points to problems with the contents of its stage 1 response. One of the landlord’s key findings was that it could have offered more support to the resident. However, the response did not explain why the landlord had reached this conclusion. In addition, the resident’s complaint included an allegation that the landlord favoured or was biased towards the neighbour. This was a serious allegation that warranted a proper response from the landlord. However, its stage 1 response did not reference her concerns around unfair treatment. This is concerning in the circumstances. It is reasonable to conclude that, given its contents, the resident was unlikely to be satisfied with the landlord’s response.
  3. Section 5.6 of the Code said “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on: Attitudes, respect and rights report (published in January 2024) explains why it is important for landlords to consider allegations of bias and investigate them accordingly. It says that failure to do this can compound a resident’s existing view that they are being treated unfavourably. It also says that investigating this type of allegation will help landlords ensure they are providing a fair, equitable and lawful service. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord’s stage 1 response was contrary to the Code and unfair to the resident.
  4. The evidence suggests the resident escalated her complaint on 27 September 2023. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 23 October 2023. This was 18 working days later. The landlord’s complaints policy shows it must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of an escalation request. The evidence shows the landlord responded in line with its policy and the Code at this point. This was appropriate complaint handling by the landlord.
  5. The evidence points to problems with the contents of the stage 2 response. It said, “A failure was identified in the handling of the communal CCTV system and it is for that reason alone that I’m partially upholding your complaint”. The evidence shows the landlord did not agree with its previous findings around a lack of support for the resident. It is reasonable to conclude its findings would have been more consistent if the landlord had explained its approach clearly in its stage 1 response. Ultimately, the conflicting information in the landlord’s responses may have caused some confusion or frustration for the resident.
  6. The response referred to the “allegations” the resident had made in her initial complaint. It also said that, based on the evidence, it was “difficult to attribute blame” to either party in the neighbour dispute. This wording suggests the landlord may have considered the resident’s concerns about bias/unfavourable treatment at stage 2. This was appropriate in the circumstances. However, the landlord could have used clearer wording to confirm this. For example, it could have said it had investigated the matter and there was no evidence to show it acted unfairly. It could also have offered to reinvestigate the allegations if the resident could provide some specific examples of unfair treatment. This approach would have been reasonable and it may have helped to build trust between the parties. Ultimately, the landlord could have responded to the resident’s concerns around bias better.
  7. The landlord acknowledged it had not addressed the resident’s concerns correctly at stage 1. Although it accepted there had been a related procedural failure, it did not attempt to put things right for her. This was unfair and inappropriate in the circumstances. Where the landlord identifies a failure, it should at least apologise for it (if it feels the failure did not have a significant impact). For clarity, we kept the resident’s concerns about unfavourable treatment in mind when we considered the case evidence. Having checked the evidence for any information to support them, there was no information to suggest that the landlord treated the resident differently to the neighbour.
  8. Finally, the response said the resident was unhappy because she had not been given “a clear pathway” to obtain a management transfer. It also said its ASB specialist had contacted her about her case and there was a lack of evidence to support a management transfer. It did not confirm what the specialist had said/done or what the landlord’s criteria for a management transfer were. Again, the landlord’s lack of clarity may have caused some frustration for the resident.
  9. In summary, there were various issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. Though its responses at both stages were timely, its approach was unfair, inappropriate and contrary to the Code at times. The resident was impacted but the landlord did not attempt to put things right. Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation. Our award is consistent with the “moderate failure” category in its relevant compensation policy. This category is for cases where a resident was inconvenienced by the landlord’s failure to follow its complaints policy or investigate a complaint correctly.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing for the failures that are identified in this report. The landlord should share a copy of its letter with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange a multi-agency case conference to discuss the resident’s situation. The meeting should include the resident, her caseworker, the landlord, the police and the local authority. The landlord is free to include other parties if needed. The meeting must establish the level of risk to the resident and any welfare/support needs. It must also explain the landlord’s current approach to the neighbour dispute and how it will coordinate with the other attending parties. The landlord should share a summary of the meeting with the resident and the Ombudsman within 6 weeks.
  3. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £725 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation must be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB. If it has already paid this amount, the landlord should deduct the £150 it previously awarded during its internal complaints procedure.
    2. £125 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to ensure that its records accurately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities. It may need to contact the resident to gather the correct details before updating its systems. The landlord must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  5. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to share a summary of this report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It must share a copy of its relevant internal communication with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks. The communication must highlight the importance of risk assessments and action plans in ASB cases (including new cases that are raised to address long-term neighbour disputes) and the importance of ASB record keeping. It must also include some learnings around the relevant CCTV issues and the landlord’s approach towards allegations of unfair treatment/bias/discrimination.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should consider appointing the resident a new ASB case handler and/or reviewing its arrangements for contact with her. This is because the resident raised concerns about an individual case handler (the landlord’s local representative). Reallocating her case may help the landlord to build trust between the parties.