Peabody Trust (202304771)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304771

Peabody Trust

30 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
2. Request to be re-housed.
3. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2 August 2021. The property is 1 bedroom ground floor flat. The resident suffers from mental health issues and fibromyalgia. For the purpose of this report the neighbour will be referred to as neighbour A. Neighbour A is also a tenant of the landlord.
The resident had been reporting ASB incidents with neighbour A to her landlord from July 2022. The incidents included neighbour A banging on the resident’s door, screaming at her, eggs thrown on her patio, and neighbour A entering her garden with a knife and slashing her fence.
On 9 May 2023, this Service contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident to raise a complaint. The resident was dissatisfied with the way in which the landlord had handled her reports of ASB about neighbour A. She said she had also had difficulties trying to raise a complaint with the landlord.
On 12 June 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said it had contacted neighbour A following the resident’s reports and matters were investigated. It was unable to provide a move. It provided a point of contact moving forwards. It was sorry to hear the local authority were unable to assist as they had deemed her to be adequately housed. It confirmed that she could still consider mutual exchange. It said it could arrange a referral to its specialist outreach team for support. It appreciated how upsetting the incidents must have been. In recognition of the delay in logging the complaint it offered £50 redress.
On 13 June 2023, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2. She said that she had not received the stage 1 response until that day. She did not consider the landlord had provided a resolution. She wanted to know why the landlord was unable to move her. She said that the property was not suitable for her mentally. She considered that the landlord’s failure to handle her reports effectively had impacted on her mental health.
On 10 July 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. The landlord outlined the resident’s reports and its responses. It could not see any evidence that showed that it had not taken the resident’s reports seriously. It had followed its ASB policy. It had delayed in handling the complaint and it was for that reason it partially upheld the complaint. It increased its offer of compensation to £75 for its delay with its stage 1 response from 10 May to 20 June 2023.

Post complaint.

The resident was dissatisfied with the response and contacted this Service. She said she was in fear for her life. She could not leave her house as she had anxiety and her landlord had not taken appropriate action. She did not understand why her landlord could not assist her to move.
In April 2024, the resident advised this Service that she is due to view a property shortly which is being offered to her by the local authority.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to the reports of ASB.

The ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 sets out the need for landlords to put victims at the heart of their response to ASB. When considering the response to a complaint of ASB, landlords must consider the effect that the behaviour in question is having on the life of the victim.
The government’s guidance ‘putting victims first: more effective responses to antisocial behaviour’ says agencies should put the victim at the heart of their response, driven by an assessment of harm to the victim.
The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on public authorities to think about the needs of people who are disadvantaged or suffer inequality when they make decisions about how they provide their services and implement policies.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy states that it takes a victim-centred and robust approach to tackling ASB, including prevention and intervention. It will refer all reports of crime to the police. Residents who report ASB are assessed for risk and vulnerability to ensure that the appropriate level of support is provided, and any safeguarding issues identified. It will agree an action plan with the resident. It will respond to reports of ASB within 2 days.
It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether the resident was subjected to ASB. However, this service does acknowledge the impact on the resident, as described within her communications. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the appropriateness and adequacy of the actions taken by the landlord to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports of ASB. This includes whether the landlord acted reasonably, proportionately, and in line with its policies and procedures.
This service acknowledges the length of time the resident states the issues with neighbour A has been present and how frustrating this would have been. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have raised her concerns sooner so that the issues could have been investigated by the landlord while they were ‘live'”. Given the passage of time, this service has only investigated the landlord’s response from July 2022 onwards.
When the resident reported neighbour A had been abusive to her in July 2022. She said she struggled to manage the rubbish which had blown onto his property because of her disability. She said she was scared. She asked the landlord to write to neighbour A asking him to avoid direct contact with her and report issues to the landlord. The landlord opened a case based on her report but did not offer to meet the resident or conduct an in-depth telephone discussion.
It failed to show that it had done any intervention or prevention work as stated in its policy which was a failing. The landlord’s notes state the resolution was that neighbour A made contact to advise that he was putting up a screen himself to prevent rubbish entering his property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out a risk assessment. This would have put the landlord in a better position to understand the resident’s reports and the support she may require.
A few weeks after this report the resident advised the landlord that she felt uncomfortable because neighbour A was approaching her and asking her to accompany him places. She had made 2 reports to the police that month. She provided the relevant crime reference numbers. There is no evidence to show what action the landlord took in response. This does not show that the landlord was taking the resident’s reports seriously or applying its policy. Furthermore, it failed to show that it had liaised with the police at the earliest opportunity to establish whether it was safe for the resident to remain at the property. That it did not was a failing.
In August 2022, the resident reported that the neighbour had “jumped out at her and shouted at her”. The landlord states in its stage 2 complaint response that it visited neighbour A and counter allegations were made so it determined that it would monitor the situation. There is no evidence to show that it communicated any counter allegations to the resident or that it had investigated any of the reports made by either party. Furthermore, there was no evidence to show how it was proposing to monitor the situation. This response was inadequate, not in accordance with its ASB policy and a further failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord’s response to the report of eggs being thrown in April 2023 was that it was difficult to act due to lack of evidence which was fair. However, there were no records to show what action the landlord had taken to investigate the matter. It could have spoken to neighbours or tried to locate witnesses. Furthermore, the resident’s perception of this would have caused further stress and anxiety given her vulnerabilities and the historic incidents. The landlord failed to show that it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities including her mental health. It did not therefore have due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
In the same month, the resident reported a serious incident where neighbour A had entered her garden with a knife and had damaged her fence. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response states the local authority, the police and its own senior manager had been involved in this case. The records do show that there had been some contact with the local authority which inferred that there may have been a request for a case review. In April 2024 this Service asked the landlord to provide its records in respect of this. The landlord advised that no records had been found. It is unclear therefore what records the landlord relied upon within its complaint response.
It is further concerning to note that the evidence provided does not show that the landlord completed any risk assessments or action plans in respect of any of the above reports of ASB made by the resident. This does not comply with the landlord’s own policy or government guidance about “putting victims first.” The resident was vulnerable and had expressed that she was scared. The landlord’s lack of risk assessments and planning was inappropriate.
The records provided do not include details of any actions taken by the landlord to investigate the case, or how it assessed the resident’s situation. While records refer to ASB cases being opened there is no further information on them. When this Service approached the landlord again in April 2024 to request the specific records again its response said the records were unavailable or not found. There is a concerning discrepancy between the circumstances referred to in the landlord’s complaint responses and its ASB records. It is therefore unknown how the landlord satisfied itself that it had followed its ASB policy within its complaint responses.
Record keeping is a core function of a housing service, not only so that a landlord can provide information for any potential legal proceedings or to the Ombudsman when requested but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. Furthermore, it enables the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
The lack of records on this matter means that this Service cannot fully assess the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of ASB reports, responses, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. This failing also puts the resident at a disadvantage should legal action be required. The landlord’s ASB record keeping was inappropriate. An order has been made in respect of this below.
In summary there was a series of failings which had a significant impact on the resident, this was due in part to her vulnerabilities which the landlord failed to consider. The landlord failed to have due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord repeatedly failed to take action in accordance with its policy which had a serious detrimental impact on the resident. The resident had said that she had felt scared on several occasions, but the landlord failed to satisfy itself whether there were safety concerns. Furthermore, it failed to consider the resident’s own perception of her safety and the impact this was having on her mental health. The resident had also said that she wanted to leave her home due to how unsafe and unsupported she felt. The landlord’s failure to consider or respond to the resident’s concerns severely undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
The impact of the landlord’s failings has been considered in the compensation award and orders below. The landlord’s lack of records demonstrated a failure to provide a service, follow its policies, put things right and learn from outcomes. These series of failings and their impact on the resident amount to severe maladministration.

Request to be re-housed.

The landlord’s rehousing policy states it may consider a management transfer through its priority move panel (PMP) for residents assessed as being at risk. The PMP will consider management transfers for tenants who need to move due to violence, harassment, hate crime, or other exceptional needs such as social, educational, or economic circumstances.
The resident had asked within her stage 1 complaint request if she could be moved as a resolution. The landlord did address this within its stage1 response. It said that it would be unable to offer her a move but failed to explain why. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that re-housing was not an outcome that could be delivered as part of the stage 2 process.
The landlord’s rehousing policy states it can consider management transfers for tenants who need to move due to violence, harassment, or other exceptional needs. If this did not apply to the resident, then the landlord should have explained why within its complaint response. This was inappropriate and a missed opportunity for it to consider the resident’s circumstances and apply its policy. It was also a missed opportunity to put matters right at an earlier stage. This failing meant that the resident had to spend additional time and trouble having to pursue the matter further.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy gives ten working days for a stage one complaint response, and 20 working days for a stage two response. In this case, the stage one response took 24 working days. The resident also said that although its response was dated 12 June 2023, she did not receive it until 13 June 2023. The landlord had however notified the resident that there was a delay. It also acknowledged its delay in its complaint response and offered £75 redress. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
Within the stage 1 response the landlord stated the ASB reports were logged and investigated. It is unknown how the landlord reached this conclusion given that the records do not portray this version of events. The landlord mentions an incident that the resident reported in December 2022 about neighbour A. The records provided to this Service do not show that this incident was logged. The stage 1 complaint response about its handling of the ASB was vague, and this would coincide with the finding of poor record keeping.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to address all of the issues raised by the resident in particular the resident’s reports of the difficulties she had trying to raise a formal complaint. This was a failing but also a missed opportunity to put matters right at a much earlier stage. The complaint handling failings caused the resident time and effort having to contact our Service to pursue her complaint further.
The landlord offered a referral to its support team within its stage 1 response This was appropriate given that it had been advised that the ASB was impacting her mental health.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response set out in more detail the resident’s reports of ASB. It clearly had not however assessed its actions against its policy because it failed to acknowledge that it had not completed risk assessments and action plans. Furthermore, its version of events lacked detail on what intervention and/or preventative action it had actually taken. This lack of detail coincides with the record keeping failures found throughout this investigation.
This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. There was a failure to respond within timescales of the complaint at stage 1. It failed to investigate all elements of the complaint. Both complaint responses were vague and demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. The complaint response failed to put things right which meant that the landlord failed to learn from its mistakes.
While there was an offer of compensation within the complaint process for its delay this did not reflect the further complaint handling failings this Service has found. These failings meant that the resident had to spend further time and trouble pursuing the complaint. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in its response to the resident’s request to be re-housed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders.

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Instruct a senior manager to apologise, in person, to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1425 compensation, made up of:
  1. £75 it already offered in its stage 2 complaint if it has not done so already.
  2. £1100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the ASB.
  3. £75 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request to be re-housed.
  4. £175 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. The landlord must review its record keeping procedures in relation to ASB. In the first instance, it should review this case to determine why the records lacked the following information:
  1. Risk assessments and action plans.
  2. Recorded logs of all communication,
  3. Details of visits and actions taken.
2. Its review should include what it will do to prevent a re-occurrence of this situation. The landlord must provide this service with details of the outcome also within 8 weeks.