Peabody Trust (202424872)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202424872 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Peabody Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Secure Tenancy |
|
Date |
25 February 2026 |
Background
1. The resident has lived in the one-bedroom flat since 1985. The landlord told us she has arthritis. The resident says she has experienced anti-social behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour, primarily noise nuisance, since at least January 2023.
What the complaint is about
2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Reports of ASB.
- Associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
3. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
4. We found the landlord provided reasonable redress for its complaint handling.
Summary of reasons
5. While the landlord’s overall handling of the ASB was appropriate, there was failings in its response to the resident’s reports of hazards and request for a permanent move.
6. The landlord did not respond to the stage 2 complaint in line with its complaint process or our complaint handling code (the Code).
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 |
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 meaningful, empathetic and has due regard to our apologies guidance. |
No later than 25 March 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order
The landlord must provide evidence it has paid directly to the resident £350 (inclusive of the £200 already awarded) for the distress and inconvenience caused by its ASB handling failures. |
No later than 25 March 2026 |
|
3 |
Take specific action
The landlord must consider whether the resident meets the criteria for a Social Welfare Transfer (SWT), if it has not done so already. It must notify both us and the resident of its decision in writing and explain what she can do if she disagrees with the outcome. |
No later than 25 March 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should respond to the resident’s concerns about noise recording equipment. It should explain whether the alternative measures she has suggested are appropriate and, if so, whether it is willing to implement them. |
|
The landlord should consider if sound proofing measures are appropriate and if it is willing to install any. |
|
The landlord should pay the resident the £200 previously awarded for complaint handling failures. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on it being paid. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
20 March 2024 |
The resident complained that she had reported 5 incidents of ASB by her neighbour between 25 January and 11 February 2024, which had disturbed her sleep. She said the landlord had not acted on her reports of a communal hazard, and she asked for a permanent move. |
|
5 April 2024 |
The landlord issued a stage 1 response and said it:
|
|
11 April 2024 |
The resident escalated her complaint. She reported a further incident of ASB from earlier that day. |
|
23 September 2024 |
The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident told us she asked the landlord to install soundproofing measures. She said the ASB continues which is affecting her sleep, mental health and employment. She feels unsafe entering the property. She wants the landlord to provide noise recording equipment which does not rely on her recording incidents in real time. |
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 the resident’s reports of ASB |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
7. The resident has reported ASB since 2023. However, in the interest of fairness, and on the availability of evidence, we have only assessed the landlord’s handling of ASB reported during both stages of the complaint process.
8. It is not our role to establish the validity of the resident’s ASB reports. Instead, we assess the landlord’s handling of them and decide if it acted in line with relevant policies and procedures. We consider if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
9. The landlord’s definition of ASB includes behaviour that causes harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance to someone in their home. Its ASB policy includes noise nuisance and says it is behaviour that either:
- Unreasonably and substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of a home, or
- Injures health or is likely to injure health.
10. The resident’s ASB reports from January and February 2024 primarily involved noise nuisance by the neighbour during unsociable hours. She also attached photographs of unopened mail intended for the neighbour’s address. She said it was on the communal stairway which was a hazard. She asked for a permanent move.
11. The landlord opened an ASB case the next day and completed a risk assessment. It discussed the ASB with the resident on 14 February 2024, in line with its ASB policy. This says it will respond to reports of ASB within 2 working days. The policy also says the landlord should assess the risk and vulnerability of the ASB complainant to ensure it provides an appropriate level of support. It is positive it did so in this case.
12. The resident provided further information that the landlord acknowledged on 16 February 2024. It agreed to contact her and, although records suggest it told her it would do so within 48 hours, there is no evidence it did. This meant she needed to chase a response at least 5 times.
13. On 20 March 2024 the landlord completed an action plan, in line with its ASB policy. It agreed to discuss the ASB with the neighbour. It also agreed to update and provide diary sheets to the resident. The resident agreed to report and record any further incidents.
14. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s request to move and said it was due to ASB and mobility issues. It invited her to consider a mutual exchange. The landlord’s ASB policy says it may arrange a Management Transfer when a resident is experiencing issues that include violence and harassment. We have not seen that the resident met this criteria. However, the landlord’s rehousing policy says it can consider an SWT when residents need to move for medical reasons and there are exceptional circumstances. We have not seen the landlord considered if the resident qualified for an SWT or explained why she did not at that time. We order it to do so now.
15. The landlord had previously opened a case with the EHT and advised the resident to report any noise nuisance to them. This was in line with its ASB policy, which says it will work in partnership with the council to tackle ASB. Our ‘learning from severe maladministration’ report of July 2025 says working with other agencies is often the key to resolving ASB. If the EHT find noise is a statutory nuisance, they can serve an abatement notice and take criminal action if the perpetrator does not comply.
16. The resident reported incidents to the EHT but was unhappy with how they responded. The resident can raise any dissatisfaction about the EHT’s service directly with them in the first instance. She may be able to pursue the issue with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, should she remain unhappy with the EHT’s final response.
17. It is positive the landlord emailed the alleged perpetrator as agreed the following day. Its ASB policy says it may take a tenancy management approach to remind residents of their responsibilities or take other preventative action. We have not seen the neighbour’s tenancy agreement. However, the landlord’s published guidance says it expects residents and their visitors not to cause a nuisance and disturb neighbours. The landlord reminded the neighbour she was responsible for her guests’ behaviour.
18. The landlord referenced a call the previous day and that it told the neighbour her actions resulted in a noise nuisance affecting other residents. It noted she denied this but it told her it would take further action if she continued to breach the terms of her tenancy agreement. The landlord said it would also report the issue to the EHT if the noise nuisance continued and it could install noise recording equipment as part of any investigation.
19. It is positive the landlord apologised for poor communication in its stage 1 response and awarded compensation for the impact of this. However, it did not address the resident’s complaint of unopened mail on the communal stairway. While internal records document the landlord did not feel this constituted ASB it had a responsibility to ensure the property was free from avoidable hazards.
20. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) helps councils assess risks to ensure residential properties are safe and healthy. Such hazards include the risks of falls on internal common stairs. Once the resident notified the landlord of the potential hazard, its should have investigated whether one existed. We have not seen it did and this was a failure in service.
21. The landlord tried to contact the neighbour again on 12 April 2024 when it also reminded the resident to diarise incidents of ASB. The resident provided diary sheets on 14 April 2024 documenting 4 incidents between 4 and 14 April 2024. She followed this up with further details and said, during one incident, the neighbour was shouting and arguing with someone in the early hours and police attended. She also said visitors woke her at 05:45 trying to gain communal access to visit the neighbour. The resident said the situation was unbearable and she was constantly woken in the early hours.
22. The landlord wrote to the neighbour again on 17 April 2024 and referenced the further reports. It said it was disappointed noise nuisance continued and had reported it to the EHT. It also said it was considering tenancy enforcement action. It updated the resident and provided a reference number for the EHT. It advised her to continue diarising events.
23. It is positive the landlord continued to take the resident’s reports seriously and considered tenancy enforcement action. However, it would need evidence of a noise nuisance to progress this, particularly as the neighbour disputed the resident’s accounts. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will investigate noise nuisance that occurs at unreasonable hours if it can be evidenced. Although the landlord had a practice of providing noise recording equipment, we have not seen it had done so at this point. It should have, given the reports of ASB had been ongoing since at least January 2024.
24. Although the landlord attempted to call the resident on 1 May 2024, we have not seen it followed this up. She reported further issues on 13 May 2024 and that the neighbour’s visitors had left the communal door open on 3 occasions. Again, she asked the landlord to remove mail in the communal entrance hall and stairway. While the landlord replied the next day to say it would investigate her concerns we have not seen what action it took, if any.
25. The next significant event was the resident reporting further ASB on 27 July 2024. She said the neighbour had been playing music on and off since 01:00 and 2 people were arguing. The landlord responded on 29 July 2024 and agreed to contact the neighbour. It reminded the resident to also contact the police and EHT when she experienced noise nuisance. This was appropriate given the argument could have escalated into a criminal offence requiring police intervention.
26. It is positive the landlord also accepted its role in dealing with ASB and agreed to investigate the issues. It said it would provide noise recording equipment, but there was a waiting list. Although the landlord arranged a quote for noise recording equipment that day, we have not seen when it offered it to the resident. She continued to report ASB and hazards of unopened mail on 27 August and 9 September 2024. Again, we have not seen the landlord responded or took any further action to address the ASB at that time.
27. It is positive the landlord acknowledged poor communication in its stage 2 response. It also acknowledged delays dealing with ASB and providing noise recording equipment, attributing it to high demand. Its award of £200 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by these failures was appropriate. It was within the range specified in the landlord’s compensation policy for service failures causing moderate disruption.
28. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s complaints about unopened mail causing a hazard. We cannot ascertain if there was a hazard at that time. However, the resident spent time and trouble pursuing this. This was in addition to her request for a permanent move, which the landlord did not adequately consider.
29. We therefore find there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports and order it to apologise for these failings and pay £350 (inclusive of the £200 already awarded) for the impact of them. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures that have adversely affected the resident and, while the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation.
30. It is positive a senior manager reviewed the case as promised. This documented that the resident later declined the landlord’s offer of noise recording equipment. Again, we do not know when this happened but the resident acknowledges doing so. She said this was because she was due to move to TA and was told equipment would only be in situ for one week. She was worried it would not capture ASB as it did not occur every night. She was also concerned she would need to activate the equipment when noise occurred and said this would eliminate any possibility of her returning to sleep after incidents.
31. We understand the resident’s concerns. However, the landlord’s request for the resident to facilitate evidence gathering to support her claim of noise nuisance was reasonable. The landlord was limited in how it could deal with her ongoing reports without supporting evidence. The neighbour denied incidents and the landlord could not escalate tenancy enforcement action through the courts without supporting evidence. That being said, the resident’s concerns about the noise recording equipment are justified. We recommend the landlord contacts her to discuss these.
32. The resident told us she continues to experience ASB. We cannot consider any new issues after the landlord’s stage 2 response. This is because the landlord needs the opportunity to respond to any dissatisfaction and put things right before our involvement. The resident can raise a new complaint if she is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of more recent reports and refer to us if she remains dissatisfied.
33. Finally, we recommend the landlord considers if the resident’s request for sound proofing measures may help reduce noise transference. We understand it is not obligated to do so. However, our spotlight report on noise complaints says actions taken to prevent and/or mitigate the typical sources of noise nuisance will, in the long run, be more cost-effective than handling the subsequent noise nuisance reports.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
34. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint policy. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement. The Code says complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days.
35. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in line with its complaint policy and the Code. However, its stage 2 response was issued 110 working days late. Records show the resident spent time and trouble chasing a reply and the landlord did not update her as to when she could expect one.
36. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider the extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings. The appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
37. It is positive the landlord acknowledged complaint handling delays and awarded £200 for the inconvenience caused as a result. This sum is above the range specified in our remedies guidance for when there have been failures that caused time and trouble and delayed getting matters resolved. Therefore, we find the landlord has provided reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
38. The landlord provided adequate records to enable us to reach a determination.
Communication
39. The landlord has acknowledged poor communication and put this right in line with our dispute resolution principles.