Peabody Trust (202420072)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420072

Peabody Trust

23 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the death of a neighbour.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom first–floor flat in a block. Her tenancy started in May 2020. The landlord is a housing association and freeholder of the property. The landlord is aware that the resident has health vulnerabilities.
The resident raised numerous ASB and noise complaints to the landlord. These reports included a variety of addresses from within and outside her block. In this case, the resident raised concerns about 2 neighbours. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to them as ‘flat A’ and ‘flat B.’
On 30 April 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports and her vulnerabilities. She also said she was unhappy that the landlord had closed an ASB case about flat B, following the neighbour’s death.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day. And then sent its stage 1 response on 3 July 2024. The landlord said it understood the resident believed flat A to be a drug user. As such, she wanted it to move them into supported accommodation. It also understood the resident considered flat B had targeted her with abuse and noise nuisance. And that she considered it had known about the neighbour’s death at flat B for 3 weeks and had done nothing about it. The landlord explained its position and did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
On 5 July 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She said she was unhappy that the landlord had responded to 2 ASB matters in its response. She repeated her desire for the landlord to move the neighbour of flat A. The resident also expressed a desire for the landlord to also move her. And she said the smell from flat B following her neighbour’s death had affected her mental health.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 14 August 2024. The landlord said it:
1. Would not discuss the personal circumstances of flat A but confirmed partner agencies were supporting the neighbour with their vulnerabilities.
2. Had received no reports or evidence from partner agencies to suggest wrongdoing by flat A.
3. Had previously issued the resident with a warning letter regarding her unreasonable communication. And it considered it reasonable to respond to flat A and B matters at the same time to manage correspondence.
4. Had previously identified no evidence to support the resident’s allegations against flat B.
5. Was satisfied with its decision to close its ASB case for flat B as the neighbour had sadly died.
6. Was unable to move the resident as she did not qualify for a priority move and the police had not considered her unsafe in the property.
7. Had identified complaint handling delays and offered an apology and £200 for the resident’s time and trouble.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. The resident said she felt the landlord had not protected her from harassment or noise nuisance for 7 years. The resident also said “the smell of death” from flat B had affected her mental health. She considered the landlord responsible.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident states that she has experienced ASB and noise nuisance from various neighbours since the beginning of her tenancy. She states the landlord’s inaction and the death of a neighbour affected her mental health.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability. Nor can we award damages for personal injury. Such matters require a decision by a court or an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages.
The resident states she has experienced ASB for more than 7 years. During this time, she has raised complaints about a variety of incidents and addresses. On 12 May 2025 we discussed the various complaints and timeframes with the resident and explained our role.
This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s specific complaint on 30 April 2024, through to its final response on 14 August 2024. Our investigation will consider events 12 months prior to this complaint. Any reference to other events will be to provide context only.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the death of a neighbour

The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the death of a neighbour at flat B. In particular how the resulting smell affected her mental health. We have explained to the resident that any effect on her health would require a decision by an insurance claim or through the courts.
While we recognise the distress this unfortunate situation would cause, the resident’s neighbour, although vulnerable, was living independently. The landlord was not responsible for their care. And as explained to the resident by the landlord, the neighbour was known to external partners and receiving the appropriate support. The neighbour’s death was an unfortunate situation which was outside of the landlord’s control.
Furthermore, the resident was never an authorised representative of her neighbour. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord did not share details of the neighbour’s situation.
The landlord’s complaint response empathised with the resident and her description of how the smell made her feel. It demonstrated completing a deep clean to flat B following the identification and removal of the neighbour’s body. Therefore, the landlord responded when notified and it took steps to improve the conditions within the block.
Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

The landlord’s ASB policy uses the definition of ASB as per Section 2 of the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014. That being:
1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s ASB policy outlines how it will address ASB and noise nuisance reports. It states it will risk assess all residents who report ASB to assess their risk and vulnerability. This is to ensure the landlord provides the appropriate level of support. The policy states, it will agree an action plan with resident’s and witnesses and keep them informed of any action taken. It also outlines that it will close a case under the following circumstances:
1. It resolves it successfully.
2. There are no further reports for a period of 6 weeks (unless it has begun legal action or is gathering further evidence) or earlier if agreed with the resident.
3. It can take no further action.
The same policy says noise nuisance, as defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, must meet one of the following criteria:
1. Unreasonably and substantially interfere with use or enjoyment of a home.
2. Injure health or be likely to injure health.
Noise from everyday living or lifestyle differences are examples that the landlord does not consider noise nuisance or unneighbourly.
Where the prime responsibility and power to lead an investigation lies with another service, such as the police or the local council, the landlord will support the investigation and take any necessary supporting action.
The landlord’s rehousing policy states it will assess all applicants to determine whether they are in ‘high priority’ need for an internal transfer. A priority management transfer is where a resident is experiencing violence, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, harassment or hate crime. The policy states the landlord may withdraw management transfer priority if an applicant refuses one reasonable offer of a suitable home.
We do not investigate whether alleged antisocial behaviour occurred. We consider whether the landlord responded appropriately and reasonably to the reports of antisocial behaviour made to it.

Flat A

On or around April 2023 the resident reported suspected drug and alcohol misuse by the neighbour at flat A. While the landlord did not disclose details of the neighbour’s circumstances, it reminded the resident that it had previously informed her of its awareness of the neighbour’s vulnerabilities. It also explained they were working with the appropriate external agencies. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to communicate with the resident about her concerns while not disclosing confidential information.
The landlord also explained to the resident the need for evidence of wrongdoing before it could take any enforcement action. The landlord recorded the resident had not provided such evidence. Nor had she sent any diary sheets as it had previously requested. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to request this information before starting an investigation.
In April 2023 there is evidence the landlord communicated with the resident’s support worker regarding her reports about flat A. The support worker acknowledged the resident’s claims of drug use were “speculative” and that they had discussed with the resident against making such assumptions. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrates the landlord made enquiries regarding the resident’s concerns.
Between April to September 2023 the resident continued to report her belief of drug and alcohol use at flat A. The evidence demonstrates the landlord continued to respond to the resident’s communications. It repeated the need for evidence and diary sheets. This was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to respond to the resident’s communications and manage her expectations.
During this same time period, there is evidence the landlord informed the resident and her support worker that the relevant internal and external services were continuing to support her neighbour at flat A. This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to communicate updates to the resident. This was appropriate and consistent with its ASB policy.
In April 2024 the resident said she had reported more than 100 ASB incidents regarding flat A to the landlord and the police. This included the resident’s upset about the neighbour leaving and returning to flat A at “unsocial hours.” It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to remind the resident that it had received no reports of wrongdoing from the police. It also reminded the resident the neighbour could come and go as they pleased. The landlord encouraged the resident to report criminal activity to the police and said it would act on any shared information. There is no evidence the landlord received any reports from the police which required it to act.
The landlord’s complaint responses in April and August 2024 included the resident’s concerns about flat A. The landlord repeated its position that it had no evidence from external partners of wrongdoing to take enforcement action. It said it would ask the resident’s neighbour to be mindful of noise when leaving/returning to the property in the early hours. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord taking steps to remind the neighbour of the importance of being neighbourly.
While witnessing another person’s vulnerabilities would be upsetting, the landlord fairly considered the resident’s concerns and followed its ASB procedures when responding to her reports. There is no evidence that the actions of flat A amounted to ASB which the landlord could act on. Nor any evidence the police considered the resident at risk. It was therefore consistent with the landlord’s rehousing policy that the resident did not meet the criteria for a management transfer due to her concerns.

Flat B

The evidence shows the resident reported noise, jumping, banging, and religious chanting coming from flat B between February 2023 to on or around January 2024. The resident sent her reports to the landlord, the police, and the local council’s noise team. There is no evidence which indicates that either the police or council identified any wrongdoing by the neighbour.
The resident also said the neighbour had laminate flooring and the sound from the TV and music would transfer. The resident informed the landlord it was affecting her ability to sleep. And she considered she was the victim of targeted harassment. It was therefore appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy to open a case and discuss matters with the resident and her support worker.
However, during March to April 2023 the resident’s support worker informed the landlord that she had witnessed noise nuisance and other incidents herself. Although the landlord has showed use of risk assessments in its case management, it did not demonstrate completing a new assessment following the support workers statement. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints published in October 2022, explains that where noise reports do not meet the statutory threshold, landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management policy. This should be distinct from its ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbour relationships. Our recommendations include the use of mediation, at the earliest opportunity, in an attempt to establish a mutual understanding of each other’s lifestyles.
The evidence shows the landlord offered the resident mediation in or around April 2023. While the resident initially accepted this offer, the evidence indicates the neighbour at flat B did not commit to this suggestion and progress stalled. That said, the landlord’s actions demonstrate that it acted in line with our spotlight report recommendations. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states the resident must not install laminate or wooden flooring without the landlord’s permission. Given this is a block of flats, it is reasonable that the obligations would be identical for flat B. It is therefore unclear why, when mediation did not start, the landlord did not discuss the resident’s concerns with the neighbour at this stage. Had it done so, it may have been able to help each party understand the effects of each other’s lifestyles. That it did not, caused the resident time and trouble repeating her concerns.
However, the evidence shows the landlord maintained contact with the police and local council’s noise team. In doing so, it identified there had been no evidence of wrongdoing and no further action taken by either external partner. As such, there was no evidence available to the landlord to take any enforcement action against flat B. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord informed the resident of this.
The evidence shows the landlord had previously installed sound monitoring equipment in 2019 and 2020. Its records state that it did not detect any significant noise on either occasion. However, it considered whether installing noise monitoring equipment again was appropriate. While it was reasonable to consider this as an option, we have not identified evidence that this took place.
Also, we have not identified how the landlord discussed this or its decision not to proceed with installing the equipment with the resident. This demonstrates gaps in the landlord’s communication and case action plans.
In April 2023 the resident reported 11 noise related incidents and described video footage of harassment via a recording doorbell. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident to report such matters to the police. It also requested the resident’s video evidence which it assessed. This demonstrated the landlord’s attempts to obtain evidence to support its investigation.
We have identified no evidence that the police took further action based on the resident’s video footage. Furthermore, the landlord recorded observing no wrongdoing. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances that the landlord discussed arranging a professionals meeting with the resident’s support worker. This demonstrated an action plan and the landlord’s efforts to work with external partners to support the resident with her concerns.
There is further evidence the landlord discussed the resident’s suitability for a move. As the police did not consider the resident at risk, the landlord considered she was not eligible for a transfer. Furthermore, there is evidence the landlord had previously offered the resident a move, but the resident declined the offer. Therefore, the landlord demonstrated using its rehousing policy to inform its decisions. And it also made the resident aware of her alternative housing options at this stage.
The landlord’s unreasonable communication policy states it may issue a warning letter to take proportionate steps to manage unacceptable behaviour. This includes unreasonable levels of contact. In September 2023 the landlord considered it necessary to take this step. The evidence shows its panel considered the volume and content of the resident’s communication unreasonable. As such, it issued a warning letter and provided the resident with a single point of contact (SPOC). It arranged weekly ASB updates to the resident via the SPOC and agreed expectations with the resident and her support worker. This was consistent with its unreasonable communication policy.
The resident continued to report matters regarding flat B until early 2024. There is also evidence of counter allegations, which the resident disputes. It was therefore appropriate for the resident’s SPOC to remain in contact with the resident and her support worker. In doing so, the landlord explained that it had identified no wrongdoing by flat B and could not take any enforcement action.
Any tenancy enforcement action by a landlord must be reasonable and proportionate. Without sufficient evidence, it is reasonable that the landlord maintained contact with external partners and continued to ask the resident to provide diary sheets. Although the resident continued to provide video recordings of the neighbour passing her flat, the police took no further action on her allegations of harassment. Therefore, it was reasonable the landlord remained satisfied that there had been no wrongdoing.
Within the landlord’s communication and complaint responses it informed the resident her neighbour at flat B had vulnerabilities. While it was appropriate not to disclose matters in detail, it was reasonable in the circumstances to explain that external agencies were providing her neighbour with support. This demonstrated the landlord attempts to communicate matters with the resident.
The resident’s complaint expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord closed her ASB case for flat B. However, given the resident had died, it was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy to close the case.
It is understandable that different lifestyles and noise transference can cause upset. However, the landlord demonstrated actively communicating with the resident, her support worker, and external partners. The landlord has communicated the need for evidence to take reasonable and proportionate action. But it did not receive evidence directly or via the police or local council to act further.
The landlord demonstrated managing extensive communication from the resident. However, it did not:
1. Demonstrate updating a risk assessment or action plan following the support workers witness statements.
2. Demonstrate speaking to the neighbour about his laminate flooring when mediation stalled.
3. Communicate to the resident or document its decision not to install sound monitoring equipment for a third time.
Therefore, based on our findings we find service failure with the landlord’s handling of ASB reports from flat B.
We order the landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation. The calculation of which is £25 for each of the identified failures. This is consistent with our remedies guide when there has been a failing in the landlord’s services which it has not acknowledged appropriately or put right.
In contact with us in May 2025, the resident said she had recent diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. She said the landlord may not yet be aware of this information. The resident also described experiencing insomnia and hearing impairments.
We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to update its vulnerability records and discuss any reasonable adjustment needs. We have also recommended the landlord considers the laminate flooring installed in flat B, and the effect it may have on noise transference, if it has not already done so before reletting it.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It states that a resident can expect a complaint acknowledgement within 5 working days. It will provide a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. If it requires more time, this should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. It will agree any extension with the resident in advance. This is appropriate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident complained on 30 April 2024. Therefore, the landlord should have sent a stage 1 acknowledgement by 8 May 2024 and a stage 1 response no later than 15 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in line with its complaints policy. However, its stage 1 response was 36 working days late. There is no evidence the landlord communicated the delay to the resident in advance. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the Code.
The Code says where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, it should incorporate them into the stage 1 response if they are relevant, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the landlord should log a new complaint.
The resident’s escalation request expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had responded at stage 1 to matters regarding flats A and B. She considered the landlord should have sent separate responses.
In this case, due to multiple overlapping complaints the landlord issued an unreasonable communication warning letter to the resident in September 2023. In which, it agreed to provide the resident with a SPOC, who would co–ordinate updates and responses. Given the resident had raised comments regarding both flats before its response, the landlord’s decision to address both was reasonable and consistent with the Code. Furthermore, it demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to manage the high volume of communication and ensured the resident received a response as soon as possible.
The resident escalated her complaint on 5 July 2024. Therefore, the landlord should have acknowledged this by 12 July 2024 and sent its stage 2 response no later than 2 August 2024. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the landlord acknowledged the request. Furthermore, it sent its stage 2 response on 14 August 2024, 8 working days late. This was not appropriate.
That said, the landlord’s stage 2 response demonstrated thoroughly responding to the resident’s concerns. Furthermore, it apologised for identified complaint handling delays and offered £200 to put things right. It also demonstrated learning by providing feedback to the appropriate teams regarding its complaint handling delays. And informed the resident it was expanding and restructuring its complaints team to minimise similar failings.
In this case, we have identified delays and gaps in the landlord’s complaint handling. However, the landlord apologised and awarded £200 compensation. This sum is consistent with our remedies guide when a landlord’s failures have adversely affected the resident.
Therefore, based on our findings, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the death of a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £75 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. £75 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord reoffers the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling delays, if not already paid.
We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to ensure its health and vulnerability records, and any reasonable adjustment needs, accurately reflect the current circumstances of the resident’s household.
We recommend the landlord contacts the resident and her support worker to offer a meeting. It may benefit from discussing:
1. How to reset the current landlord and resident relationship.
2. The resident’s housing options.
3. Outstanding complaints with the landlord and us.
4. Additional support needs required to assist the resident in her home.
We recommend the landlord considers the suitability of the flooring in flat B if it has not already done so before reletting it.