Peabody Trust (202347731)

Decision
Case ID	202347731
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	8 May 2026

Background

The resident lives in property that has been split into flats. They have reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring flat for a significant period. The resident has also raised concerns about their neighbour storing personal items in the communal area of the building. The resident said this affected their access to communal doors and created a fire hazard.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of reports of personal items that were stored in communal areas.
The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
We will also consider the landlord’s complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of personal items that were stored in communal areas.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
There was a service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord did not action the resident’s reports that personal items were being stored in communal areas prior to or as a result of the complaint. There was no evidence that it fully considered the safety risks associated with this behaviour.
The landlord failed to appropriately action the resident’s reports of ASB, and it did not identify this failing in its complaint responses.
In its stage 2 response the landlord offered less compensation than its offer at stage one despite it identifying additional failings.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1100 made up as follows: £600 for the distress associated with the landlord’s failure to properly investigate the resident’s reports of ASB. £200 for the distress associated with the landlord’s failure to properly address reports of items being stored in the communal areas. £300 for the distress associated with the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 05 June 2026
2	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 05 June 2026
3	Meeting order The landlord is to arrange a meeting with the resident in person, via telephone or virtually (whichever may be the resident’s preference). In this meeting the landlord is to: Allow the resident time to describe the ASB and the impact on them. Discuss with the resident any actions it can take to address the ASB. This is to include if it can install CCTV in the common areas, noise monitoring equipment, and safety measures in the resident’s property. Explain how it plans to collect evidence of the ASB. Explain if the resident is eligible for a transfer under the landlord’s ASB policy. Within 2 weeks of this meeting the landlord is to provide the resident with an agreed action plan which includes a timeframe for agreed actions.	No later than 19 June 2026
4	Action plan order The landlord is to produce an action plan outlining how it aims to address the resident’s reports of items being stored in communal areas. This plan is to be shared with us and the resident.	No later than 19 June 2026
5	Communal inspection order The landlord is to make arrangements for re-occurring inspections to occur in the communal parts of the resident’s building. The inspections should happen at regular intervals and should assess if its clear communal spaces policy is being adhered to. The landlord is to share its planned schedule with us; this is to include when its first inspection will occur.	No later than 19 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 February 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. They said: They were unhappy that the landlord had not responded to their concerns about their neighbour’s bike being stored in communal areas of the building. The resident said the bike presented a trip hazard and a fire safety risk. They added that the way it was being stored made it challenging to access the communal stairs.
23 March 2024	The resident contacted us for assistance with their complaint. On 30 May 2024 we asked the landlord to produce a stage one response.
13 June 2024	The landlord sent its stage one response, it said: An ASB case was currently open, and the case handler had agreed to contact the resident to discuss their concerns. A review of the ASB file had not identified any failings in how the ASB report had been managed. It showed the landlord had tried to meet the resident and create an action plan. It apologised for the delay in filing a complaint and it offered £100 in compensation for this failing, and £200 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience.
17 June 2024	The resident escalated their complaint and cited the following reasons for doing so: The ASB issues were unresolved, and their neighbour was still storing their bike in communal areas. They thought it was unacceptable that the landlord closed their ASB case without contacting them. Additionally, the landlord said the case had been closed due to no additional reports, but this was incorrect as they had reported further incidents. There had been numerous occasions where they had contacted the landlord and had not received a response.
4 July 2024	The resident contacted us for assistance. On 23 August 2024 we asked the landlord to produce a stage 2 response.
31 August 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: It had decided to only review the reports of ASB made over the past 12 months, even though there was a long-standing history of ASB. It said this decision was in line with its complaints policy. It apologised for how it had managed the complaint and said the service the resident had experienced was unacceptable. It said learning had been shared with relevant members of staff. It said there were significant delays in it responding to the complaint, and its stage one response did not address the resident’s concerns about communal spaces. The ASB case was closed on 13 June 2024, this was after an in-person visit was attempted. On this occasion a letter was left as the resident was not at home. A new ASB case had been opened on 23 July 2024 after the resident made a new report. It encouraged the resident to keep diary sheets to assist with its ongoing investigation into the ASB. It said it should have been more proactive in its communication and provided timelier responses to the resident’s calls and emails. It offered £75 in compensation for a failure to address the resident’s reports of items being stored in communal areas. It offered £150 in compensation for its handling of the ASB, £50 of which related to a failure to respond to emails and calls, and £100 related to a failure to contact the resident when they reported ASB. It offered compensation of £275 for its complaint handling. This accounted for the delays the resident experienced, and that it did not address all complained of issues at stage 2.
10 September 2024	The resident asked us to investigate their complaint. They said the landlord had not made meaningful progress in addressing their ASB reports even though the neighbour had made serious threats of harm.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of personal items that were stored in communal areas
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s website contains guidance for residents on fire safety. It says residents are to keep all communal areas clear, this includes keeping areas free from items such as bikes and buggies. The landlord highlights cluttered communal areas are a fire risk as clutter can affect the ability to flee the area, and affect emergency services from accessing the building. The landlord says it will remove any flammable items in communal areas.
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 outlines fire safety duties for responsible persons in domestic properties which have communal parts. In this case, the landlord would be considered a ‘responsible person’. Landlords are responsible for taking reasonable steps to ensure precautions around fire safety. This includes avoiding risks, installing preventative measures and ensuring emergency exits are kept clear.
Prior to their complaint the resident informed the landlord that their neighbour was leaving personal items in communal areas in September 2023, October 2023, December 2023 and January 2024. When doing so the resident cited concerns about hazards including slips and trips, and fire safety concerns. In response to these reports the landlord did not commit to inspecting the building or speaking with the neighbour. This was unreasonable.
The resident told us that their neighbour’s property is located by the communal front door. Therefore, the items left by their neighbour in the communal parts affect all residents living in the building. The position of the neighbour’s property means there could be a risk that items stored outside it could block entry and exit points to the building.
We asked the landlord to provide details of any communal inspections it conducted in the building. It provided details of an inspection of fire equipment in the building in November 2024, but it did not provide details of any inspections relating to the communal parts or the issues the resident reported.
The resident complained about the landlord’s lack of action on 19 February 2024. In their complaint they cited concerns about trip and fire hazards. The issues raised by the resident were potentially serious, and the landlord should have taken steps to investigate and action the concerns.
In its stage one response the landlord did not address this element of the complaint. In its stage 2 response it said it had no records of actions taken following the resident’s reports. It apologised for this failing and offered £75 in compensation.
In its complaint responses the landlord did not commit to any actions to address the resident’s concerns or to enforce its policies. The landlord’s complaint responses would have caused the resident distress as it indicated the landlord had not learnt from the complaint, and had not tried to improve its services. A key element of complaint handling is to learn from service failures and to try and put matters right. On this occasion the landlord did not demonstrate that it learned from the complaint as it took no steps to make improvements. It is on this basis that we have found maladministration occurred.
The resident has told us that since they sent their complaint for us to investigate the landlord has cleared items from the communal areas a few times. They said after items are removed their neighbour slowly starts to put additional items outside of their property. This creates a cyclical pattern where the resident reports concerns, chases the landlord for a response and the communal spaces are then cleared.
To address the failings identified we have ordered the landlord to:
1. Produce an action plan to ensure its clear communal policies are adhered to within the resident’s building.
2. Arrange for regular inspections to the communal areas.
3. Pay compensation of £200 for the distress experienced.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s ASB policy says it is committed to taking all reports of ASB seriously and empathetically, and it will ensure support is provided to both victims and perpetrators. The policy also says residents will be kept updated throughout the investigation.
The policy says when a report of ASB is made the landlord will contact the reporting party within 5 working days to agree an action plan. The case handler will then gather relevant evidence to inform the next steps. Possible actions include words of advice, mediation, good neighbour agreements and, where required, tenancy enforcement. In more serious cases a panel may consider whether the resident qualifies for a priority move. The landlord will only close a case when the issues have been resolved, there is insufficient evidence to progress matters, or when there are no reasonable or proportionate actions it can take.
On 4 September 2023 the resident reported that their neighbour was moving furniture, slamming doors and making groaning sounds during the early hours. The landlord advised the resident to speak with their neighbour, if they felt comfortable doing so, and to complete diary sheets. It said it would send letters to the block reminding residents not to make excessive noise at night. In response the resident said the issues were longstanding, and they raised concerns about their neighbour’s mental health.
On 30 October 2023 the resident chased the landlord about the block letters. The landlord said the letters had not been sent, and it committed to sending them within 10 working days. Internal discussions later concluded that block letters would not be appropriate and that the relevant parties should instead be contacted. The case file shows the landlord contacted the resident 88 working days later. This delay was inappropriate, particularly as the resident had been told letters would be sent within 10 working days. There is also no evidence that the landlord contacted the neighbour about the noise issues raised. This demonstrated poor ASB case handling.
On 15 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord’s Chief Executive due to a lack of action on their previous reports. They said that on 6 January 2024, when they returned home, their neighbour began banging, shouting obscenities, and using threatening and sexist language for several hours. They said they felt scared and contacted the police. They also said they remained concerned about their neighbour’s behaviour and believed a welfare check was needed.
The Chief Executive forwarded the report to the relevant team, and the landlord opened an ASB case. The case records show actions were generated to obtain records from the police. The ASB records do not contain evidence to suggest the police were contacted, or that the resident was spoken to prior to filing their complaint. This was unreasonable given the landlord’s policy requirements, the nature of the behaviour reported, and the concerns about the neighbour’s wellbeing. This represented a significant failing and indicated the landlord did not support either party appropriately.
In its stage one response dated 13 June 2024, the landlord said it had not identified any failings in its handling of the ASB and that the case handler would contact the resident. The landlord said it attempted an in‑person visit on 13 June 2024 and left a letter when the resident was not home. The resident disputes that the visit took place. As there is no independent evidence, we cannot determine whether the visit occurred. However, it was inappropriate that the landlord’s first attempt at an in‑person visit would be planned to occur 6 months after the January 2024 report, and that such a visit would not be pre‑arranged.
On the same day, 13 June 2024, the landlord closed the ASB case. This was inappropriate because, due to the date of the closure, the resident had not had an opportunity to respond to the stage one outcome or the reported visit. The landlord said it closed the case due to a lack of new reports from the resident or the police. This was incorrect, as since January 2024 the resident had submitted a complaint, requested to be rehoused due to ASB, and reported feeling fearful of their neighbour. In combination with the landlord’s lack of case management, the decision to close the case was unreasonable and not in line with policy.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted it should have been more proactive in its communication and acknowledged delays in responding. It apologised and offered £50 for failing to respond to the resident, and £100 for failing to contact them after the ASB report. It was positive that the landlord recognised some failings.
However, the landlord did not identify several significant failings in its handling of the ASB. These included its failure to investigate the ASB, its failure to consider safeguarding risks to either party, its premature closure of the case, and its failure to respond to the resident’s request for rehousing. The compensation offered did not reflect the impact of these failings on the resident. On this basis, we have found maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay £600 in compensation.
The resident has told us the ASB has continued, the ASB includes daily noise nuisances and non-regular threats and harassment. They said the behaviour has recently escalated to racial harassment, and the police are now involved. The resident said this has had a significant impact on their personal life, as they feel scared and are unable to sleep properly due to the noise, which in turn affects their work performance. They told us they feel unsupported and exhausted by repeatedly raising ASB concerns as they do not receive proactive contact from the landlord. They said the only way they can get a response from the landlord is by making a complaint.
Taking into account the findings we have made, and the resident’s associated concerns, we have ordered the landlord to meet with the resident to discuss their concerns and to then produce an action plan setting out what it can do to address the concerns.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its timeframes for responding to complaints. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue a stage one response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. If the resident requests escalation to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement.
The resident complained on 19 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 13 working days later, which was outside its policy timescales. It issued its stage one response 70 working days after the acknowledgement, and only after we asked it to do so. This was significantly outside its policy timescales. In addition, the stage one response did not adequately address the resident’s concerns about the communal areas in the building. This was unreasonable.
The resident escalated their complaint on 13 June 2024. Due to a lack of communication from the landlord, the resident contacted us for assistance and chased the landlord twice. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request 47 working days later on 20 August 2024. This was an unreasonable delay. It then issued its stage 2 response 9 working days after the acknowledgement. This was the first point in the complaint process where the landlord met its policy timescales.
In its stage 1 response the landlord offered £100 in compensation for its failure to log the resident’s complaint and £200 for distress and inconvenience. The landlord did not clearly explain the basis for the £200 award. As the only failing identified at stage one related to complaint handling, we consider the total compensation offered at stage one for complaint handling to be £300.
In its stage 2 response the landlord reviewed its complaint handling. It offered £50 for failing to fully address the complaint at stage one, £100 for delays at stage one, and £125 for delays at stage 2. It was appropriate that the landlord considered its complaint handling failures in full. However, the total compensation offered at stage 2 was £275, which was lower than the stage one offer. It was unfair that the resident experienced additional delays at stage 2 but was offered less compensation. On this basis we have found a service failure occurred. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £25 in compensation to recognise the impact on the resident, so that the total compensation for the failings in its complaint handling is £300.

Learning

Our review of the complaint has identified areas where the landlord can learn from this case to support future service improvement.

Communication

The resident has told us that they felt landlord has repeatedly failed to respond to their communications. The landlord should consider what improvements it can make to ensure the resident received better service in this area.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should consider if it can make improvements around the record keeping in relation to the reported ASB, and concerns about the communal areas. Improvements in this area could enable the landlord to better understand the history between the parties and consider appropriate next steps.