Peabody Trust (202337696)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337696

Peabody Trust

31 July 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), including her concerns that her mail was being stolen.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which started in March 2014. The landlord’s records note that the resident has physical vulnerabilities and mental health issues.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes the resident’s concern, that ASB had been ongoing since 2014, when her tenancy started. However, we have not been able to corroborate this from the evidence seen. The earliest report that the Ombudsman has seen is 24 February 2023. We have also not seen evidence of any complaints submitted by the resident regarding the matter until December 2023. Therefore, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from February 2023 onwards, that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The Service notes the resident’s comments regarding her health and the impact caused by the delays during the course of her complaints. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causations of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

Landlord obligations

The Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines ASB as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress to any person, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s vulnerable adults policy states that, it will endeavour to ensure services are delivered fairly and equally to all and to the highest possible standard.
The landlord’s ASB policy encourages all its residents to be mindful of how their lifestyle may affect others. It states that while lifestyles can clash, they are not considered a breach of tenancy or lease, or as behaviour not compatible with living in a neighbourly manner, or which might affect the quiet enjoyment by others of their homes. This includes noise from everyday living. The policy further states that the landlord will:
1. Aim to prevent and minimise the amount of ASB experienced by its residents.
2. Take a victim-centred approach, and robust approach to dealing with ASB and respond to reports of ASB within 2 working days.
3. Risk assess residents who have reported ASB for their vulnerability, to ensure the appropriate level of support can be provided, and any safeguarding issues are identified.
4. Work in partnership with external agencies as necessary to tackle ASB in its neighbourhoods and provide support to those with vulnerabilities.
5. Support the investigation and take any necessary supporting action where the prime responsibility and power to lead an investigation lies with another service, such as the police or the local authority.
6. It acknowledges that low level and repeated incidents of noise can have a serious impact on a person’s life. Therefore, it may consider it appropriate to take a tenancy management approach to remind residents of their responsibilities or take other preventative action.
7. Agree an action plan with the complainant and any witnesses and keep them informed of the actions it takes.
The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. It aims to ensure that its actions are carried out as quickly as possible, and that its communication is clear, timely and polite. It will aim to acknowledge complaints received within 5 working days and respond to:
1. Stage-1 complaints within 10 working days.
2. Stage-2 complaints within 20 working days.
If it needs more time, it will provide an explanation to the complainant containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required, this should be agreed by both parties.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider and offer remedies including compensation where the service it provides fails or falls below the published standards. This policy recognises that as well as awarding compensation or offering to undertake other actions to put things right, an appropriate remedy should always include a sincere and well worded apology.
It recognises that there are instances where the distress or inconvenience caused by a failure in service will have been compounded by a vulnerability such as age, disability, or mental health. Therefore, its compensation payments reflect the additional detriment that may have been caused due to these individual circumstances. It may pay up to £650 where a service failure has occurred and there has been a high impact on the resident.

Summary of actions

The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 February 2023. She said:
1. She could not cope any longer with the noise being caused by her neighbour which had been ongoing since 2014.
2. There had been several instances of domestic violence which she had reported to the local council and the police due to young children living in the neighbour’s property.
3. There had been incidents of banging, kicking and swearing by an occupant whilst they were trying to gain access into the property. This had caused distress to her daughter and her cats.
4. She would like to meet with the landlord to review the recording she had made of the incident.
The resident reported concerns about her mail delivery to the local council on 4 July 2023. She said this had been going on for years, as her mail was being delivered to the upper flat. Most of her mail was being delivered to the communal door, but she did not have a key to access the area. She would like the local council to update her address and add basement flat to her postal address to assist in resolving the issue.
The local council responded on 5 July 2023 and provided the resident an application pack for a street naming and numbering verification order. It asked the resident to contact the freeholder of the property to get their consent.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 December 2023. She said:
1. She was disappointed and frustrated that it could not address the historical reports of noise nuisance and ASB, by the neighbours and would only go as far back as 6 months.
2. The landlord failed to investigate her reports, and she was last told by email on 8 June 2023, that a manager was dealing with her case.
3. No one had contacted her, and this had compounded the problems she had been experiencing from her neighbours since February 2023.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 18 December 2023. It said:
1. The resident’s complaint was logged on 27 November 2023. She explained that since she had been making reports about the noise nuisance, her case manager had not informed her of changes to its ASB policy, and action plans had not been successfully completed. For example, she was not informed that the use of noise monitoring equipment had ceased.
2. It was not able to investigate service failures that may have occurred since 2014, but it would backdate the investigation of the ASB case handling to February 2023.
3. It received her reports of ASB, but these were forwarded to the relevant manager for further investigation. Apart from its correspondence to her in June 2023, no further responses were sent to her.
4. An ASB case was not opened in accordance with its policy, and procedures for dealing with new incidents of ASB. The last ASB case was logged in 2022.
5. Its community safety team would open an ASB case to manage the noise nuisance only and the case manager would be in contact with her.
6. With regards to her concerns about mail delivery, its investigation showed that 2 different addresses were registered to her postcode. Also, pictures of her home from the street level showed that her flat is correctly labelled in her bay. For this reason, additional signage was not required, as there is sufficient information for the postal service to ensure post is delivered correctly.
7. It cannot be held responsible for any post that was not delivered correctly, and therefore could not grant her request to pay for penalty notices that were not delivered to her directly.
8. Any concerns about post being stolen or withheld by her neighbours should be reported to the police directly as it is a criminal matter.
9. Regarding her request to access the communal area, it had been agreed that a copy of the key to the communal door would be sent to her. This would allow the resident access to the meter cupboard and to collect any post mistakenly delivered through this door.
10. It had failed to follow its policy in how it had dealt with the resident’s reports made in February 2023. It apologised and offered £150.00 in compensation for the service failure.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 January 2024: She said:
1. Her initial contact was through a 90-minute telephone conversation on 14 December 2022. She had made a complaint and was advised that her housing officer would be in contact with her.
2. Due to the impact of the issues she was experiencing at the time the housing officer referred her to the health and well-being department, but nothing more was ever done. Although the noise disturbance from domestic abuse had reduced significantly, it remained an issue. There were daily incidences of stamping, jumping, banging and occasional high audio volumes of video games, during the night.
3. The neighbour had several kittens and their constant movement disrupted her sleep, and adversely impacted her physical health. She also had problems with pigeons.
4. The landlord had not intervened or provided any support, especially when she raised concerns that the neighbour was withholding her mail.
5. The property had been registered and numbered incorrectly which had led to mail being delivered to the neighbour’s property. The landlord’s decision to withdraw her key to the communal area hindered her family in collecting her letters, and in checking her electric meter reading. For this reason, she holds the landlord responsible for the incorrect delivery of important mail such as parking fines.
6. She is registered disabled and had missed out on health appointments, due to the landlord’s poor management of her case and poor communication regarding her concerns.
7. She would like to view the evidence referenced in the landlord’s stage 1 response that the property is labelled correctly from street level.
The landlord provided copies of the pictures of the property as requested on 8 January 2024. It said the compensation offered was in recognition of its poor handling of her ASB reports since February 2023 to December 2023. It increased the offer to £400 in consideration of the impact of the ASB on her health and the time and trouble incurred. It asked the resident if she would still like to progress the complaint to stage 2, as any compensation offered at stage 1 may be disregarded subject to the outcome of the complaint review. The landlord also advised that issues relating to pigeons should be raised as a new complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 January 2024. She said:
1. She would like the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
2. She had tried to send a video recording of a dispute from the above property, which occurred on 6 January 2024 at approximately 1am.
3. The compensation offered by the landlord did not reflect the inconvenience and distress she and her family had experienced. She had made various complaints, but nothing had been done by the landlord.
4. While the landlord is not responsible for its tenant’s behaviour, it has a duty to exercise its policies when put on notice of issues of ASB.
5. She was yet to receive a key to the communal door.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 30 January 2024. It apologised for the delay in logging the complaint and advised that it would respond within 20 working days.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 20 February 2024. A summary of the response is outlined below:
1. It apologised for the ongoing challenges she had faced in expressing her concerns about how it had handled her ASB reports dating back to 2014.
2. Reports of postal theft needed to be made to the police as they have the authority to address criminal activities and enforce the necessary measures. Its ability to assess criminal behaviour is limited without police involvement.
3. It was unable carry out a thorough investigation of her historical ASB reports due to poor record keeping practices by the previous housing management. It apologised for the negative experiences she may have encountered and assured her it would uphold better standards of care and consideration for residents who report ASB.
4. In relation to the recent ASB case, it acknowledged there had been a failure in service on its part as it could have taken proactive measures to prevent the situation from escalating.
5. Further to this, it would ensure the dispute over the signage at the property is looked into adequately as she remained unhappy with the findings so far.
6. It would also arrange for the communal door keys to be provided to her as urgently as possible. It would keep her complaint open and provide regular feedback on the progress of the matter.
7. Following its recent merger with the previous housing management, it would aim to review its policies and procedures within all departments, including the handling of ASB reports and the support services offered to the victims. It understood the impact that noise can have on victims and is committed to implementing the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise.
8. In view of the failures identified, it would like to increase its offer of compensation for time and trouble and inconvenience to £300. This was because the actions promised in its stage 1 response had not been completed.
9. It was unable to cover the cost of her parking fines as she needed to follow this up with the relevant authorities and provide an explanation regarding the circumstances.

Actions following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

The resident informed this Service on 14 March 2024 that the issues raised with the landlord remained unresolved and she had not been able to access the communal area to pick her post or check her meter readings for 3 years. She said a new housing officer had contacted her regarding the provision of the key, but they remained unresponsive about the ASB issue.
On 25 June 2024, the landlord discussed the resident’s case. It said:
1. It would follow up on the communal key and consider potentially installing a small sign on the door of the property. It acknowledged that there was an issue with the address of the flats which meant the resident’s mail was being delivered to the wrong flat.
2. It would contact the resident and request recent recordings on her phone so it could follow up any concerns.
The following events occurred on 3 July 2024:
1. The resident informed this Service that a senior member of the landlord’s staff contacted her around 25 June 2024 and assured her that they would try to obtain a copy of the key to the communal area, and provide an email address she could forward any evidence of noise disturbance to for further review. The resident said she had not received any further contact since then.
2. The landlord noted in its internal correspondence that the resident’s reports of ASB were mainly historical and that she had not submitted any evidence to assist with its investigation.
3. The landlord said it had left a message for the neighbour to allow access so they could make a copy of the key to the communal area. It said it was also exploring additional signage for the door that would assist with mail being delivered to the resident’s address.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), including her concerns that her mail was being stolen.

In cases relating to ASB, it is important to clarify that this Service’s role is not to ascertain whether ASB occurred or not, or who is responsible, but to determine whether the landlord responded to reports of ASB received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
From the history of the case, the landlord did not take a victim-centred approach in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance or ASB. The resident stated in her correspondence in February 2023 and in her complaints that the noise was adversely impacting her physical health, causing lack of sleep and disrupting her peace and enjoyment of the home. Following the resident’s contact on 24 February 2023, regarding noise disturbance, the landlord should have followed its policy by providing a means for her to gather and submit evidence. It said its policy had changed so that it no longer provided noise monitoring equipment, but it should have explored other means for the resident to record the incidents of noise or ASB to assist with its investigation.
Although the landlord’s policy states that it will risk assess residents’ vulnerability to determine the impact of the ASB being reported, we have not seen any evidence of attempts on its part to do so. The resident, in her correspondence to the landlord in January 2024, advised that she has physical disabilities and was constantly in pain as a result. She said her condition was being adversely affected by the disturbance she was experiencing from the property above hers. While its policy recognises that repeated incidents of noise can have a serious impact on a person’s life, the evidence or lack of it shows that it did not take the resident’s concerns seriously. Despite the resident’s concerns about her vulnerability and the severe impact of the ASB on her health, the landlord failed to assess if there was any support that could be provided to the resident to ease the situation or lessen the impact on her family.
There is no evidence of any actions taken to assist or support the resident from February 2023 (when the resident initially contacted the landlord) to December 2023, when she submitted a formal complaint. The landlord did not provide most of the information requested by this Service to assist with our investigation. This has made it difficult to ascertain the events that happened before and after the resident’s email of February 2023. This said, we have seen from its stage 1 response that the landlord acknowledged receiving emails from the resident, but that her concerns were not acted upon.
The landlord appeared to have learned from its mistakes, as it fully acknowledged that it had failed to follow its ASB policy and procedure, and that its communication concerning her reports was poor. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused due to its poor handling of the case and assured her on 18 December 2023 that the case would be properly managed thereafter. Despite its assurance and actions agreed, the landlord failed to deliver on its promises. This would have caused the resident further distress, further eroding her trust in the landlord.
As part of the ASB issues, the resident complained that her mail was been intercepted or stolen by the neighbours in the above flat. While it was reasonable to advise the resident to report this matter to the police, it is unreasonable that no efforts were made on the landlord’s part to alleviate the problems described by the resident. The resident explained in detail that she needed access to the communal area, so she could check for any misdirected mail and check her electricity meter readings. She said the misdirection of mail had caused her distress and inconvenience as important letters such as hospital appointments and parking fines had been missed. While the landlord agreed to provide a copy of the key in its response dated 18 December 2023, it did not follow this through.
In its stage 2 response on 20 February 2024, the landlord acknowledged that it had limited powers in dealing with criminal activities, however, as the evidence indicates the neighbour was its tenant, it should have interviewed them or notified them about the reports made against them. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to the police to pursue the matter, best practice is clear regarding partnership working and the ongoing obligations of the landlord, even when they are not the lead agency. Failure to demonstrate any steps to resolve the issues about the mail dispute between the neighbours shows an overdependency on other agencies to resolve the matter. This is not appropriate nor in line with its ASB policy. As a resolution to the matter, the landlord reiterated its previous offer to provide the key to the communal area urgently. This action remains outstanding.
It is evident from the history of the case that the resident’s concerns about ASB have not been taken seriously by the landlord. Although the landlord acknowledged this in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, it failed to follow through on the actions agreed. The landlord offered £400 at the end of its stage 1 complaints process, but it increased the time and trouble element to £300. It is, however, unclear if this is in addition to the £400 previously offered as this was not clearly explained.
The landlord assured the resident that it understood the impact of noise on the victims and that it would follow the recommendations in this Service’s spotlight on noise report. It acknowledged that it had not handled communication with the resident effectively and failed to manage her expectations. However, the resident informed this Service that apart from a phone call from the landlord on 25 June 2024, promising the same actions previously agreed in December 2023, the landlord had not committed to the resolutions agreed. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, including her concerns that her mail was being stolen.

The landlord’s record keeping

The importance of clear record keeping, and management cannot be over emphasised, given the impact it has on landlords’ effective overall service provision. This Service’s knowledge and information spotlight report (KIM) explains how landlord’s services can be held back by weaknesses in data and information, which can turn an ordinary service request into an extraordinarily protracted complaint. It further notes that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information.
The landlord indicated in its internal correspondence that it was having difficulty accessing information pertaining to the resident’s historical reports of ASB. However, it has not demonstrated any efforts on its part to obtain this information, or provided any clear reasons for why it was unable to provide these records. The landlord failed to provide records of the resident’s ASB reports, which made it difficult to ascertain how long she had been reporting it and the frequency of the reports. Other evidence requested by this Service such as, the resident’s original complaint, its contact notes, internal correspondence concerning the ASB reports and information relating to the complaint about access to the communal area were not provided. We wrote to the landlord on 27 June 2024, that we had not been able to locate the information requested for our investigation. It responded that it had passed the information to the relevant team within its organisation. We followed up our request on 2 July 2024, but the landlord failed to provide the outstanding information.
Due to the missing information, we contacted the resident, and asked her if she was able to provide records of reports, and expressions of dissatisfaction, submitted to the landlord between 2022 and 2023. She advised that she changed internet providers which has made it difficult to access older emails.
Although the landlord had already admitted to receiving earlier reports and that it failed to manage the case or act quickly to resolve them, the lack of evidence brings to light concerns about its record keeping and whether it kept appropriate records of the resident’s reports. The limited evidence has also impacted our ability to conduct a full and fair investigation of the resident’s complaint about ASB, access to the communal area and mail delivery issues. Due to this, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in its record keeping. An order has therefore been made to address this.

Complaint handling

As noted earlier in the report, the landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s original complaint. It however said in the stage 1 response that her complaint was logged on 27 November 2023. Going by this date, the landlord took approximately 18 working days to respond to the complaint. This is not in adherence with its complaints policy. It should have responded within 10 working days or requested additional time if it needed longer to resolve the complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its response on 18 December 2023 or apologise for it. This is not appropriate.
The landlord failed to learn from the error made with the handling of the stage 1 complaint. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 4 January 2024, but it did not respond until 20 February 2024 (33 working days after it was received). Although the landlord apologised for the delay in logging the complaint, when it acknowledged it on 30 January 2024, it should have offered compensation when it responded to the complaint for the inconvenience in adherence to its policy.
While the landlord acknowledged its poor service delivery and communication, it failed to learn from this and put things right for the resident. It agreed actions at both stages of the complaints process but it not follow these up. These are significant failings, which left the resident in a complaints process with no clear outcomes or clear timescale for actions to be completed. Considering this, there is evidence of maladministration in its handling of the complaint. Overall, the landlord failed to adhere to its policies. It did not monitor the actions and promises made and it failed to put things right for the resident through its complaints process. The failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling amount to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB, including her concerns that her mail was being stolen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not take the resident’s reports of ASB seriously. We have seen throughout the history of the case that it failed to take her vulnerabilities into consideration. It admitted that it did not act on reports made by the resident or follow its ASB policy. It also failed to follow up the actions agreed, which remain outstanding.
The landlord failed to demonstrate that it kept clear and accurate records of the resident’s reports of ASB, and other issues raised. It failed to provide an explanation for not providing most of the information requested by this Service. This made it difficult for us to determine the scope of our investigation and to ascertain that it correctly recorded and dealt with the reports made by the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses were delayed. It did not acknowledge the delays in its responses or offer any redress for the inconvenience to the resident. The complaints process failed to monitor the progress of any actions agreed which left the resident’s concerns unresolved for an extended period of time.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident in writing. A copy should be provided to this Service.
2. Pay the resident a sum of £2100 (which includes the £700 previously offered if it has not yet been paid) broken down as:
  1. £500 for the distress and frustration to the resident for the failure to address the ASB reports.
  2. £500 for the failures identified in the landlord’s record keeping.
  3. £400 for the distress, frustration and time and trouble to the resident for its handling of the complaint.
3. Follow up its phone call to the resident on 25 June 2024 and provide clear advise on how she can submit evidence concerning the ASB if she continues to experience it. It should also provide an update to the resident on the steps being taken to provide her with a key to the communal area, and the timescale for the provision of the key.
4. Ensure compensation awarded should be paid directly to the resident.
5. Provide this Service evidence of compliance with the above orders.
In a previous case, the Ombudsman ordered the landlord to review its record keeping practices and provide training for complaint handlers and ASB staff. It responded that it was carrying out ongoing workshops on the importance of data recording and keeping within the ASB policy guidelines. It said ongoing training was provided to staff up until December 2023. It has also recently self-assessed against this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of complaint handling and record keeping.