Peabody Trust (202330124)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330124

Peabody Trust

19 August 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The resident’s request for assistance with rehousing her son.
   3. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 2 bedroom house that, at the time of the complaint, she shared with her 25 year old son.
3. The resident said that she has reported ASB for a number of years, dating back to when her son was in primary school. These have all been regarding the same property but relate to different types of ASB.
4. The resident first asked the landlord to raise an ASB complaint on 22 November 2023. The landlord responded by directing her to their ASB team. It advised that reports of ASB need to be logged, so that they are able to address them accordingly.
5. The resident sent 6 emails to the landlord between February 2024 and June 2024. These included requesting that the landlord open a complaint in relation to the handling of ASB, along with assistance for her son with moving house. In these emails, the resident referred to the impact the situation was having on her and her son’s mental health.
6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports of ASB on 26 March 2024. It stated that it could not resolve ASB under the complaints process, and she would need to follow the ASB process in order to do so.
7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the reports and sought help from this Service on 14 May 2024. We contacted the landlord to advise it should open a complaint relating to the handling of ASB and provide housing options for the resident’s son. 
8. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 28 August 2024 advised of the following outcomes:
   1. It would write to all residents within the block with a reminder to be more mindful with reference to doors closing and disposal of cigarette butts.
   2. It would provide the resident with diary sheets to complete over the next 14 days.
   3. It was unable to support further with re-housing for her son and signposted her to his current landlord.

It also offered £75 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience and for the delay in issuing the stage 1 response.

9. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 2 September 2024. She said that she had provided evidence of ASB to the landlord over the years but it had not investigated these. The resident did not receive a reply to this and approached this Service on 4 December 2024. We contacted the landlord on 18 February 2025, stating a stage 2 response was required by 18 March 2025.
10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 March 2025. It apologised for the lack of clarity provided regarding the ASB process, and advised the following:
    1. All previous reports of ASB were infrequent and over a long timeframe, meaning it was difficult to investigate as a single ongoing issue.
    2. It had not received diary sheets from the resident, but encouraged the use of these in order for an investigation to progress.
    3. The advice provided at stage 1 relating to rehousing her son was correct and appropriate.
    4. It acknowledged the delays in its complaint responses and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
    5. It had also reviewed the compensation offered at stage 1 and increased this to £175. This consisted of:
       1. £50 for distress and inconvenience.
       2. £125 for time and trouble.
11. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 25 March 2025. She said the landlord had not properly investigated the evidence she had provided. She reiterated the effect the situation was having on her mental health.

Jurisdiction

12. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
13. The resident contacted the landlord in February 2024 to request rehousing assistance for her son. The landlord responded in June 2024, providing information on how she could pursue a rehousing request. As her son was housed with a local council at the time, she (or he) should raise the rehousing request with that provider.
14. Paragraph 34(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that a complaint must relate to the actions or omissions of a member which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have affected the complainant in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property.
15. As the resident’s complaint was about her son’s occupancy and rehousing options, this did not affect her tenancy. As such, in accordance with paragraph 34(a) of the Scheme, this matter is outside of our jurisdiction.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

16. The Ombudsman notes that there is a long history of ASB reports by the resident. However, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of reports from November 2023. This is based on the timeline of the landlord’s complaint responses and evidence made available to our Service for investigation.
17. The resident has described how the ASB has impacted her health. While this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to any landlord’s failures.

Policy and Procedures

18. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will take a victim-centred and robust approach to tackling ASB. When it receives a report, it will respond within 2 working days. It will risk assess the report and agree an action plan.
19. The landlord’s complaints policy states that, upon receipt of a complaint, it will log this within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days.
20. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider time, trouble and inconvenience incurred when assessing compensation for a service failure. The amount awarded will depend on the impact and range up to £200. A complaint handling failure will be assessed against the same criteria with a range of up to £150 for moderate impact.

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

21. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict and improve the experience of its residents. ASB cases are often challenging as options available, or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case, may not be the resident’s preferred outcome. It can become difficult to manage expectations.
22. The resident contacted the landlord regarding an ASB incident on 22 November 2023. She said the incident involving her son had required police intervention. She expressed how the ongoing situation was impacting both her and her son’s mental health. This concern was reflected throughout the resident’s contact with the landlord. She stated that recent counter allegations about her had led to her feeling she was not able to use her tumble dryer due to the noise. She requested help from the landlord to resolve the issue.
23. The landlord responded on 27 November 2023. It advised that reports of ASB must firstly be logged with its ASB team and provided their contact number. It said this was to ensure reports were addressed accordingly. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to provide early intervention and reduce the resident’s distress. This was not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy that advises it will conduct a risk and vulnerability assessment with a resident to ensure it provides the appropriate level of support.
24. Between 18 February 2024 and 28 April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord on 7 occasions. In each of these communications, she expressed the effect the situation was having on her health and referenced GP interaction. She advised the landlord she held evidence in the form of video doorbell footage of recent incidents of ASB, along with police incident records following their involvement.
25. The responses from the landlord said that it could not resolve reports of ASB under the complaints process. It stated that the resident could raise a complaint once the ASB team had concluded their investigation if she remained unhappy. The landlord’s ASB policy states that reports can be made via phone, email or in person. It would have been reasonable for it to forward the resident’s reports to the appropriate team to assess them and establish the relevant next steps. It did not and this caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing her complaint. As such, this is a failing by the landlord in not following its policy.
26. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 28 August 2024, it confirmed its intention to write to all the neighbours regarding noise and cigarette butt disposal. This was intended to provide anonymity for the resident. This was appropriate given the resident’s concerns of counter allegations. The landlord also provided diary sheets for the resident to record incidents to allow it to start an investigation. Its response showed it took the resident’s reports seriously and used initiative to provide a pro-active solution to the issue. 
27. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge the health impact this situation was having on the resident. It would have been appropriate for it to have forwarded her emails to the ASB Team so they could complete the necessary risk assessment. This would have provided it with information to establish if external agency referrals were required. It would have also allowed for an action plan to be completed, along with an appropriate contact strategy. This missed opportunity caused the resident additional time and trouble later in the timeline and does not reflect a victim-centred approach.
28. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 24 March 2025 provided a more detailed explanation of its handling of the ASB reports. It stated the frequency of the resident’s reports meant each would have been investigated individually. This had restricted its ability to treat the reports as one incident. It confirmed that the diary sheets provided at stage 1 had not been returned and this would limit its ability to investigate the issue further. It offered £50 compensation for its failure to adequately manage expectations regarding ASB procedures.
29. The Ombudsman welcomes and encourages landlords to learn from complaints. It is positive that the landlord recognised its failure in providing adequate advice regarding its ASB process.
30. However, the landlord did not provide the resident with any reassurance that it would investigate these incidents as ASB. It did not consider the tools and powers it has available under the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to help it de-escalate these incidents. This was another missed opportunity to establish an action plan, rebuild the relationship and manage expectations. These failures likely contributed to a continued drift in the neighbours’ relationship and increased the number of counter-allegations. There is no evidence available to the Ombudsman that the landlord considered any of these actions which would likely have prevented further distress for the resident.
31. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. The landlord did acknowledge the resident’s concerns and wrote to all neighbours to address the most recent reports. It also offered diary sheets to record evidence moving forward, which was appropriate. It accepted failings in its explanation of the ASB process and offered redress for this.
32. However, it failed to sufficiently learn from the complaint or fully acknowledge the distress this prolonged issue had caused the resident. It did not provide appropriate assistance in raising an ASB case by not taking ownership of the resident’s reports from late 2023 to mid-2024. It also failed to follow its policies or use the appropriate tools available to address the issue and reach an appropriate outcome. The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident. However, Its offer of £50 compensation was not appropriate and did not fully reflect the adverse effect caused to her. As such, an order has been made below.

The associated complaint

33. The resident sought to raise a complaint with the landlord on 22 November 2023. Having experienced difficulties in getting an outcome, she spoke to this Service on 14 May 2024. We contacted the landlord on her behalf requesting that it raise a complaint on 4 June 2024, with a response due by 18 June 2024.
34. There was an unacceptable delay for the resident. During this time, she contacted the landlord on 6 separate occasions requesting it raise a complaint without appropriate action being taken.
35. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in line with its policies on 5 June 2024. There is then a gap in the records until 20 August 2024 when we contacted the landlord again. We advised that a response was overdue, and it was required to respond to the resident by 28 August 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 August 2024.
36. The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 2 September 2024. There is another gap in the records until this Service again contacted the landlord on 18 February 2025. We advised a stage 2 response was required by 18 March 2025.
37. The landlord responded the following day with an acknowledgement. It then requested an extension to continue the investigation on 14 March 2025. This was within the timeframe advised in its policy of 20 working days.
38. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 24 March 2025, it acknowledged the complaint handling delays and reviewed the compensation offered at stage 1 to reflect this. It advised of an increased offer of £125 due to:
    1. Delays in its stage 1 response.
    2. Failure to action the stage 2 request.

This was an appropriate response by the landlord. It was correct to review the amount awarded at stage 1. The total offer of £125 was reasonable and reflects the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for a service failure which adversely affected a resident.

39. Overall, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. While there were lengthy delays at both stages of the complaints process, the landlord has recognised this and offered appropriate redress. It also identified appropriate learnings from these failings and actions to prevent them from reoccurring.

Determination

40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
41. In accordance with paragraph 34(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for assistance with rehousing her son is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
42. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

43. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £150 in compensation that is inclusive of the £50 offered at stage 2, if not already paid. This is in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failings in its handling of reports of ASB.
    3. Conduct an interview and risk assessment with the resident to understand any ongoing ASB and agree an appropriate way for these incidents to be reported and addressed.
44. The landlord is to reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders in line with the above timescale.

Recommendations

45. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £125 offered at stage 2 for delays in its complaint responses. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this amount is paid.
46. The landlord should consider the failures identified in this report and share the findings with its staff responsible for ASB management. It should highlight the need for all front line staff to escalate reports of ASB to the correct team. It should also consider establishing an effective action plan from the outset when receiving reports of ASB.