Peabody Trust (202228736)

Background

1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat. In January 2020, the resident reported antisocial behaviour from her neighbour which included noise nuisance and cannabis smoking. Whilst the antisocial behaviour incidents were ongoing, the resident said she had stress and anxiety. The antisocial behaviour is now resolved as the resident’s neighbour no longer lives at the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
4. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress, which in our opinion, resolved the errors of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to investigate all of the resident’s reported ASB incidents in relation to her neighbour and on several occasions, it failed to carry out a risk assessment. It acknowledged there were some failings in its handling of the reported ASB. However, it did not offer the resident sufficient compensation to recognise the errors.
6. The landlord acknowledged there were delays in it providing its responses at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process and offered the resident sufficient compensation to recognise the delays.

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.

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.

7. It is outside our role to establish whether someone has committed antisocial behaviour, but rather, we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s antisocial behaviour reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances and whether it acted in line with its own internal policies, the law and industry best practice.
8. The resident raised as part of her complaint that the reported ASB had been ongoing since 2018. Our scheme states we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months of the matter occurring. The resident raised a formal complaint in June 2023, and we have seen no evidence she raised a complaint within 12 months of when she became aware of the issues. However, the landlord included the resident’s ASB reports between 2020 and 2023 in its final complaint response. We therefore consider it reasonable in the circumstances to consider the landlord’s actions from 2020 onwards. However, considering the approach set out in our scheme we have given greater weight to the landlord’s actions in the 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint of June 2023.
9. In January 2020, the resident reported noise nuisance and cannabis use from her neighbour’s property. The landlord opened an ASB case and completed a risk assessment to identify any risks to the resident. This was in line with its ASB policy, which requires an assessment of risk and vulnerability for all residents reporting ASB to ensure appropriate support. During the same month, the landlord issued a warning letter to the neighbour about the reported noise nuisance and informed the resident. It closed the ASB case in February 2020 after no further ASB incidents were reported, in accordance with its ASB policy.

10. The resident reported a further ASB incident from her neighbour in July and October 2020. She reported noise nuisance including loud music, shouting and swearing and also reported cannabis smoking in her neighbour’s property. The resident informed the landlord she had reported the initial incident to the police and both noise nuisance incidents to the local authority’s environmental health team (environmental health). The resident was right to report the allegations of cannabis smoking to the police, as the police are responsible for investigating criminal behaviour such as drug use. The landlord completed an updated risk assessment in July 2020 which was reasonable as several months had passed since the last incident. It also sent a further warning letter to the resident’s neighbour about the reported ASB.
11. The landlord’s records also indicate that the police issued the resident’s neighbour with a partial closure order, which normally bans most people from visiting their property apart from the landlord, carers, and the emergency services. The resident emailed the landlord in August 2021 and informed it that her neighbour had breached their closure order, and she had reported this to the police. It was correct to do this as the landlord did not implement the closure order, so the police were best placed to respond to this.
12. There were no further reports of ASB from the neighbour until March and April 2022. In March 2022, the resident reported an altercation in the neighbour’s property involving shouting, swearing, and door slamming. In April 2022, she reported noise nuisance and loud music from the property and said she had also reported this to the local authority. There is no evidence that the landlord opened an ASB case or completed a risk assessment following these reports. This was not in line with its ASB policy, which requires both actions when ASB is reported.
13. In January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and reported ongoing ASB issues with the neighbour including loud music and drug use. The resident asked the landlord to provide her with an action plan to help manage the reported ASB. This was a reasonable request from the resident and also in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which, states it will agree an action plan with the complainant and any witnesses and keep them informed of the actions it takes. From the information provided, the landlord failed to provide the resident with an action plan or carry out a risk assessment. This may have caused the resident distress as the landlord had not responded to her request.
14. The landlord contacted the resident in April 2023 asking her to provide it with comments and statements of recent ASB incidents from her neighbour. The resident responded to the landlord’s email and explained she had previously reported numerous ASB incidents by her neighbour to the landlord. Also, on the same day the landlord asked the resident if it could install noise recording equipment in her property to gather further evidence. Noise recording equipment is an important tool to understand the type of noise nuisance and also the volume of the noise. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer to install the equipment sooner than it did or alternatively ask the resident to download a noise application on her phone to record the noise incidents. It would have also been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether mediation was appropriate as it can be an effective way to resolve neighbour disputes in some cases.
15. The resident remained unhappy about the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB. She also stated as part of her complaint that the situation regarding the reported ASB caused her stress and anxiety. We acknowledge this has been a very difficult time for the resident. However, it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused, through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurance. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
16. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses that its communication could have been better with the resident when she reported the ASB incidents. It also acknowledged there were delays in repairing her neighbour’s damaged front door which made her feel unsafe. It offered the resident £200 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reported ASB. As there were several instances where the landlord failed to open an ASB case, carry out a risk assessment or create an action plan in line with its ASB policy. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by these errors. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £50 to £100, where there is a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge this and/or fully put it right. This applies in this case as the landlord offered compensation, but it was not enough to fully put things right. The resident has told us the ASB is now resolved due to her neighbour no living at the property.

17. The landlord’s complaint process has 2 stages. The timeframes in the landlord’s complaints policy are the same as the timescales referenced in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states a stage 1 response must be sent within 10 working days from the complaint being logged, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days
18. The resident submitted her initial complaint to the landlord on 21 June 2023. Following this, the landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 13 September 2023. The complaint response was late and outside the 10-working day timescale referenced in the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
19. On 20 September 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. There was a delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 16 January 2024. Overall, it took the landlord approximately 81 working days to provide its response. This would have caused inconvenience for the resident, as she had to wait to receive her stage 2 complaint response before she could progress her complaint with us.
20. The landlord acknowledged in both its complaint responses that there were delays in it providing its stage 1 and 2 complaint response and offered the resident £250 compensation. The overall compensation offered for complaint handling-delays was sufficient to recognise the delays. The compensation offered to the resident complies with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above which suggests awards in this range where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact from the errors. The compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the delay on the resident and amounts to reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s records were detailed enough for us to investigate the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint.

Communication

22. There was very limited communication from the landlord to the resident when she reported some of the ASB incidents relating to her neighbour.