Peabody Trust (202506546)

Background

1. The resident lives in a bedsit flat within a block of flats. She lives with an autoimmune condition, and reports having PTSD, anxiety and depression. She says she has been experiencing both excessive noise and harassment from a neighbour in the flat above, who we will refer to in this report as ‘neighbour A’. She says she feels unsafe in the property, and temporarily moved out on multiple occasions. She believes the landlord has not responded reasonably to her reports, and wants it to both rehouse her and evict neighbour A.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about how the landlord handled reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’).
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in how the landlord handled reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’).
5. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for its complaint handling failings.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord took reasonable and appropriate steps to manage the reported ASB. It agreed action plans with the resident, tried to gather evidence, liaised with other agencies, issued warnings to neighbour A, and followed its own ASB policy. There was insufficient evidence for the landlord to take any enforcement action against neighbour A, and it had no duty to rehouse the resident based on the evidence available to it. It appropriately explained this to the resident. While there were some minor shortcomings (such as a delay in reviewing diary sheets), those caused no detriment, as they did not change the overall outcome.
7. The landlord’s stage 2 response was delayed. It acknowledged this, and made an appropriate offer of compensation to put things right. It does not need to do anything further.

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.

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.

What we did not investigate

8. Our scheme rules say we may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s complaints process. The resident previously made a complaint about staff conduct and breach of confidentiality related to the ASB. That complaint has not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, so we cannot consider it as part of this investigation.
9. The resident believes the landlord breached the tenancy agreement and her right to quiet enjoyment of the property. She also believes that no rent is due for the time she lived in temporary accommodation provided by the local authority. She said the reported ASB affected her health. The courts are best placed to deal with these disputes as they all require a legal determination (which is not within our remit). So we will not investigate these aspects of the resident’s complaint.
10. The resident wants the landlord to rehouse her as a resolution to this complaint. In line with our Scheme, we will not make orders that compel a landlord to act in a way that could adversely affect other individuals. This includes requiring it to offer the resident a particular property. But we will consider if the landlord appropriately applied its policies.

Assessment

11. It’s not our role to decide whether ASB or noise nuisance occurred, or who was responsible. Nor can we decide whether a landlord could (or should) have evicted a tenant. Only a court can decide whether the criteria for an eviction have been met. Our role is to assess how the landlord responded to the reports it received.
12. When a landlord receives an ASB report, it has to investigate that report. The action it can take in response depends on the nature of the ASB and the available evidence. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve ASB or noise nuisance can be extremely limited, and may not result in the resident’s preferred outcome. So it’s important to consider whether the landlord has acted in line with its policies and good practice when responding to reports.
13. In this case, while the resident said there had been ASB since August 2022, she first reported it to the landlord in March 2023. So we will only be considering events from that point onwards.
14. On 21 March 2023 the resident reported daily loud noise through the night, with verbal abuse and threats from neighbour A when she confronted them about the noise. She also reported an indirect threat to life made through another resident of the block, and alleged drug use and drug dealing. She said she wanted the landlord to evict neighbour A and also rehouse her.
15. In response, the landlord opened an ASB case, requested further information, completed a risk assessment, and asked her to complete 2 weeks’ worth of diary sheets. It explained it would review the diary sheets when she sent them, and then assess what action it could take. It also interviewed neighbour A, offered mediation (which they rejected), and signposted the resident to the police (for criminal activity) and the local authority’s noise team. It asked her to provide reference numbers when she contacted the police and local authority, as it could get information about reports and investigations from them when it had those details. It agreed an action plan to this effect with the resident.
16. All of the above steps were reasonable and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and good industry practice. It was also reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to the police and local authority. The police are the correct body to investigate criminal behaviour, and the local authority has enforcement powers and expertise related to statutory noise nuisance that the landlord does not.
17. The resident provided diary sheets on 6 April 2023. The landlord reviewed them, and identified that all of the entries were for January 2023. It interviewed neighbour A again, and asked the resident to provide updated diary sheets. These were reasonable and appropriate steps.
18. On 12 April 2023, the resident said she had temporarily left the property due to ASB. She said multiple other residents would provide evidence, and that there had been a threat to her life. The landlord asked for more information, including a screenshot of the message she had referred to. It also asked if she had made reports to the police and local authority as agreed in the action plan. It explained it works closely with those agencies, and it would not rehouse her without a police risk assessment confirming it was necessary.
19. Based on the evidence provided, the resident did not respond with the requested information. She continued to seek rehousing through a representative, who said there had been no update from the landlord. The landlord responded to that representative with the information it had given the resident.
20. The resident disputes that the landlord took any action during this time. But the evidence shows it took a number of reasonable steps. It needed the requested evidence to take further action, but did not receive it. So there was insufficient evidence for the landlord to do anything further.
21. The local authority contacted the landlord on 5 May 2023. They said the resident had activated the community trigger under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The landlord engaged with the process, provided evidence, and explained it did not have enough evidence to allow it to take any action against neighbour A.
22. The panel met on 21 May 2023 and sent the outcome to all parties on 5 June 2023. They said the investigations were at an early stage, and the local authority’s noise team had not been able to witness any of the 8 incidents the resident had reported. They found that there was insufficient evidence for any action to be taken, and encouraged the resident to comply with the action plan she had agreed with the landlord.
23. After the panel meeting (but before the panel sent the outcome), the landlord carried out a joint door-knocking exercise on the estate with the local authority. The evidence shows that all residents who answered the door confirmed they had not witnessed or heard of any drug use or drug dealing in the block. So this did not produce any supporting evidence the landlord could act on.
24. While the resident continued speaking to the police and local authority, we have seen no evidence to show the landlord received any reports or supporting evidence between the community trigger panel meeting and 19 October 2023. So while the landlord reasonably kept the case open, there was no further information for it to act on.
25. The resident reported loud noise overnight on 19 October, 20 October, and 3 November 2023. The landlord contacted her in response to the reports, and arranged a meeting with her for 13 November 2023. At the meeting it discussed the nature of the ASB, and agreed an updated action plan with her. This was a reasonable step.
26. The resident provided diary sheets on 27 November 2023. She also said she wanted neighbour A evicted. The landlord acknowledged the diaries, and encouraged the resident to keep reporting any incidents. It has provided no evidence of assessing the diaries at that time. It either failed to assess them, or failed to keep adequate records of having assessed them. This was the first example of a shortcoming in the landlord’s handling of ASB in this case. However, we have seen no evidence this caused any specific detriment to the resident. This is because the landlord did review the case later, and the outcome remained the same.
27. The landlord’s records show that it was in contact with the resident over Christmas 2023, and that she provided a copy of a threatening message from neighbour A at that time. The landlord issued a verbal warning to neighbour A, and advised that it may take enforcement action. The landlord then had noise monitoring equipment installed in January 2024 (the earliest available date). Its records show the equipment confirmed there was noise, but did not identify the source. It then sent a tenancy warning letter to neighbour A on 12 February 2024, and liaised with the police on the same day.
28. The landlord reviewed the case on 1 March 2024, and identified that there had been no new reports since the warning letter. It tried to contact the resident to discuss the case, but there was no answer. She contacted the landlord on 21 March 2024 and advised she had moved to her mother’s property due to the ASB. She maintained the landlord had acted unreasonably in not evicting neighbour A. The landlord explained it had no legal power to evict a tenant, and only a court could do that. It correctly explained that she needed to report noise so it could gather enough evidence to support legal action.
29. On 10 May 2024, the landlord told the resident that it was closing the case as she was no longer reporting ASB. But it confirmed it could reopen the case when she was able to report again. This was reasonable, and in line with its ASB policy.
30. On 22 July 2024, the resident reported that neighbour A had sworn at her and assaulted her by pushing her into her front door on 18 July 2024. The landlord provided her with a letter to support an application for temporary accommodation with the local authority, which demonstrates it took her concerns seriously. It also completed a risk assessment, and interviewed neighbour A on 13 August 2024, but there were no further reports to act on.
31. The landlord explained to the resident that as assault is a criminal matter, any action it could take would depend on police actions. This was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy, which says it will allow police to take the lead in investigating criminal allegations. The evidence shows it continued to liaise with the police and local authority. It also arranged contact between the police and the resident when the police said they had been unable to contact her to take a statement.
32. The police confirmed they were taking no further action regarding the assault, meaning the landlord did not have enough evidence for tenancy enforcement action. And as the resident had left the property, it also had no new reports or evidence to base any further action on.
33. Overall, while we understand the resident’s frustration with the situation, the evidence shows the landlord took a number of reasonable steps to resolve the ASB. And the end result not being the resident’s preferred outcome does not mean the landlord acted unreasonably. While there were some shortcomings on the landlord’s part (such as a delay in reviewing diary sheets), they did not change the overall outcome.
34. The resident says the landlord should have evicted neighbour A, and acted unreasonably in not doing so. A landlord cannot evict someone without a court order, and a court needs substantial corroborative evidence to grant a possession order. The landlord assessed the evidence available, and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to take any legal action. We have seen nothing which suggests that conclusion was incorrect.
35. The resident also believes the landlord should rehouse her. The landlord has no obligation to rehouse residents outside of its ASB and rehousing policies. The policies do not include any rehousing options based on noise nuisance.
36. The landlord will consider a priority move in the event of harassment under those policies, but only where the police have confirmed that a resident is at risk if they remain in a property, and need to be moved. While the resident told the landlord the police had deemed her at high risk, she did not provide the landlord with any evidence of this. And the police have not told the landlord that she needs to be moved. So the landlord’s decision was reasonable based on the evidence available to it at the time. It also signposted the resident to alternative rehousing options, which was reasonable.
37. For the reasons set out above, we find there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports.

38. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The timescales in the landlord’s complaints process match those set out in the Code.
39. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint and issued its response within the relevant timescales. But its acknowledgement of the escalated complaint was delayed by 25 working days. This then caused a knock-on delay with the stage 2 response.
40. The landlord acknowledged that its response was delayed. It offered £50 compensation for this delay. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings of a short duration which do not affect the overall outcome.
41. We have seen no evidence that this delay caused the resident any specific detriment, or changed the outcome for her. This is therefore a reasonable offer of redress, and the landlord does not need to do anything further to put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

42. While the landlord has a number of records related to the ASB, some of its records were missing. For example, while the records show it had agreed action plans with the resident on multiple occasions, it has not provided copies of all of those action plans. It has also relied heavily on internal emails for records, rather than effectively using a centralised case management system with all actions recorded on it. The landlord would benefit from reviewing its record keeping practices to ensure it keeps full and accurate records of all actions taken.

Complaint handling

43. The landlord should ensure that it has adequate resources in place to ensure that its staff are able to comply with the Code (including when staff are on leave), and that its staff have sufficient training on its complaint handling obligations.