Peabody Trust (202315937)

Background

1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord and the property is a 2-bedroom flat. Over a 4-year period he complained to the landlord about noise nuisance from the flat above him. The landlord investigated these issues however the resident was unhappy with the lack of action it took as the issues repeated.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not follow its ASB policy and procedures and failed to investigate the reports raised by the resident.
5. There were record-keeping failures where visits and conversations were not recorded on case files.
6. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s escalation request until our intervention and so delayed responding at stage 2 until 60 working days after the request.
7. The landlord failed to raise a complaint following an earlier expression of dissatisfaction submitted by the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. It is understood that there have been historical reports of ASB by the resident. However, we have not seen evidence of a formal complaint exhausting the landlord’s complaints process until February 2024. In the interests of fairness this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the reports from April 2022 because this is what was referenced in the resident’s complaint and is what the landlord has responded to in its initial complaint response.
9. On 28 April 2022 the resident reported ongoing noise from the neighbour above, including objects being thrown and verbal abuse. He said the issue had led him to contact the police and leave the property. The landlord opened an ASB case and noted the resident would submit diary sheets and video evidence. There was no recorded contact until 6 July 2022, when the landlord attempted to call the resident but did not get through. It noted this was a recurring case that involved counter-allegations, and that both parties had previously declined mediation. The landlord did not act appropriately following the resident’s report. In line with its ASB policy it should have contacted the resident within 2 working days of his report, carried out a risk and vulnerability assessment and agreed an action plan with him.
10. On 23 August 2022 the landlord noted that the case was linked to a counter-allegation raised by the neighbour on 17 May 2022, recorded under a different case number. There were few entries on this case until 6 July 2022, and no evidence of contact with either party during that period. This did not align with the landlord’s ASB policy, which states that complainants should be kept informed. The landlord acknowledged this failing in its stage 2 complaint response.
11. On 9 September 2022 the landlord recorded visits to both the resident and the neighbour to discuss the noise reports. The resident said there had been no recent incidents, and it was agreed the case would be closed. There is no evidence that the case was formally closed or that a closure letter was sent, as required by the landlord’s policy. The landlord audited the case on 27 September 2022 and recommended closure, but this was not actioned. This demonstrates poor record keeping and its lack of action was not appropriate as it did not keep the resident updated.
12. On 30 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord about noise from the flat above, which he attributed to the absence of carpets. He said he had previously been told the landlord would supply carpets to reduce sound transfer. We have not seen evidence that the landlord had made this offer. The landlord responded on 3 October 2022 confirming it had spoken to the neighbour and that it did not provide carpets. It told the resident it was working on a lasting solution. This was a reasonable response as the reported noise was everyday household noise and not considered to be ASB.
13. On 5 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord after hearing aggressive rants from his neighbour. The landlord responded on 6 February 2023, advising him to continue reporting harassment to the police. It recorded on 7 February 2023 that the case was being closed and sent a letter to the resident confirming this, again advising him to contact the police if further incidents occurred. This was an appropriate response, as the landlord’s ASB policy states that such behaviour is best investigated by the police.
14. On 29 June 2023 the resident called the landlord to report further noise issues from his neighbour. The landlord advised him to submit diary sheets. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the matter, which was not appropriate. While requesting diary sheets was reasonable, the landlord should have followed this up directly with him.
15. On 10 July 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord expressing dissatisfaction with ongoing issues. He said no solution had been implemented by the landlord, council, or police, and claimed no one had visited him to investigate. The landlord responded on 11 July 2023, acknowledging the 29 June 2023 contact and reiterating the request for diary sheets. It said it had attempted to call him twice but did not get through. Case notes show the landlord visited the resident on 13 July 2023, but there is no record of what was discussed or agreed. This was a further failing. Landlords should ensure notes of meetings are written up as soon as possible and retained appropriately. Without accurate, timely notes it is harder for the resident to challenge the landlord or for the landlord to demonstrate it followed its procedures.
16. The resident raised a formal complaint on 24 October 2023. The landlord responded on 16 November 2023, stating it had not received diary sheets and again requested them to proceed with an investigation. This was a reasonable response, as there is no evidence the resident submitted diary sheets. It was reasonable for the landlord to subsequently agree in its stage 2 response to consider if there was a different way of obtaining evidence from the resident.
17. The resident requested a stage 2 review on 29 November 2023. In its response on 23 February 2024, the landlord acknowledged it had not followed its ASB process, as it did not visit the resident until after his 10 July letter. It also advised him to contact the council when first experiencing noise nuisance. The landlord also acknowledged that mediation had not been offered and apologised, which was appropriate. It asked the resident to continue submitting evidence of current noise issues.
18. In summary, the landlord did not follow its ASB policy consistently. It failed to carry out risk assessments or agree an action plan and did not respond to ASB reports within required timescales. It did not visit the resident until September 2022, which was not appropriate. In its final complaint response, the landlord advised the resident to raise the issue with the council. While the local council can decide if there is a statutory noise nuisance, the landlord remained responsible for investigating issues involving its tenants.
19. Although the resident did not submit diary sheets, the landlord did not provide evidence of any actions taken to address the issue. Apart from the September 2022 visit, there is no record of discussions with the neighbour about the allegations. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to speak with the neighbour about the allegations, even in the absence of diary sheets.
20. The landlord awarded £50 compensation at stage 2 to acknowledge its failure to visit him when he first reported ASB. As outlined above, our investigation has found several further failings including failure to carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan and a lack of contact with the resident. Therefore additional financial compensation of £200 is appropriate to reflect the likely inconvenience, frustration and distress caused to him. The total sum of £250 is in line with our remedies guidance where there have been failings that adversely affected the resident.

21. The landlord’s complaint policy states it would respond to a complaint:
22. within 10 working days of acknowledging at stage 1.
23. within 20 working days at stage 2.
24. The landlord has not provided evidence of when the resident’s complaint was acknowledged. It responded to the resident’s complaint 18 working days after it was submitted. This was a failure by the landlord to adhere to its complaint policy which was not appropriate.
25. The resident requested the landlord review his complaint on 29 November 2023. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 23 February 2024 following our intervention. This was 60 working days after the resident’s request which was not appropriate.
26. On 10 July 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord expressing dissatisfaction with ongoing issues and a lack of action taken by the landlord. The landlord should have treated this as a formal complaint, and their failure to do so was inappropriate.
27. In its final response to the resident, the landlord addressed its complaint handling failures and apologised for the delays in responding at both stages. It awarded the resident £110 compensation for the moderate failings identified which caused inconvenience for the resident. This is in line with our guidance remedies for the impact this had on the resident. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

28. The landlord should ensure that its ASB policy and procedure is followed, ensuring that risk assessments and action plans are completed and the complaint is acknowledged.
29. It should review its handling of noise complaints and discuss the issue raised with both parties where it is deemed that the noise is classed as ASB.
30. The landlord should ensure that notes and actions are documented on ASB cases with detailed notes of conversations and visits that take place.
31. It must act on emails from residents to ensure that requests for complaints and escalations are actioned within its timescales.