Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Peabody Trust (201903951)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201903951

Peabody Trust

19 May 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. This Service has received information relating to repairs issues from the resident. The repair issues include problems with heating and hot water, damp and mould, and missed contractor appointments. This investigation will be specifically about the issues raised and responded to in the stage one and two responses issued by the landlord as part of its internal complaints procedure. This is accordance with Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme which says the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have been made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint procedure. As such this investigation will not consider the repairs issues.
  4. The resident can raise a separate complaint to the landlord about the repair issues if she wants to. The Ombudsman may be able to investigate the separate complaint if the resident remains unhappy once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
  5. The resident has also raised concerns about the sharing of her personal data with other organisations, such as a local health service. The resident believes a breach has taken place, she is advised to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), who will be able to determine whether that is the case.
  6. The resident is encouraged to speak with the landlord’s data protection department regarding her desire for her data to be removed from its systems. A landlord will necessarily need to store some data in order to perform its functions as landlord in a contractual agreement with the resident. The Housing Ombudsman will not make an order for the landlord to remove data, as this also falls under the remit of the ICO. This is in accordance with Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme which says that the Housing Ombudsman will not consider complaints which “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a flat owned by the landlord.
  2. On 9 July 2020, the landlord sent a letter to the resident. It informed the resident that it had received allegations of the resident committing antisocial behaviour. The allegations had been made by three of the resident’s neighbours and were related to noise nuisance and harassment.
  3. On 9 September 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord making a formal complaint against the manager who had written the letter of 9 July 2020. She stated that the allegations made against her were false and untrue, that they had no dates next to them and therefore were “unfounded and slanderous”. Her complaint also contained the following:
  1. Counter allegations against one of the resident’s neighbours, specifically that they were using secret recording equipment to record the resident and causing noise and ASB.
  2. A statement about the resident’s lawyer having put in a letter of claim in 2015 that outlined the bullying and harassment the resident states she has endured from the landlord.
  3. Allegations of distress caused by a neighbour having visitors with a dog, and the dog barking and running about in the garden.
  4. Counter-allegations of ASB from another of the resident’s neighbours.
  1. On 12 November 2020, the resident wrote again to the landlord, noting that it had been more than two months since she had made her complaint. She asked that the landlord investigate and respond.
  2. On 16 December 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response and responded to each of the resident’s concerns in turn. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It was satisfied the correct procedure had been followed for managing the complaints received from the resident’s neighbours. It also confirmed that residents using recording equipment in their own homes to record noise coming into their homes was not something it objected to. It confirmed its pet policy allowed pets on the premises. It was unaware of any court orders from 2015 as referred to by the resident. It stated that the rest of the resident’s complaint concerned a neighbour who was not a tenant of the landlord’s. It advised that the resident contact the relevant estate agent or the council to pursue any complaints about that individual.
  3. The resident was invited to respond by 30 December 2020 if unhappy with the response. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident contacted the landlord to indicate she wished for the complaint to be escalated.
  4. On 27 May 2021, this Service contacted the landlord and requested it escalate the resident’s complaint, having been contacted by the resident. The landlord confirmed on 2 June 2021 that the complaint had been escalated. The resident had stated in letters to the landlord that she was upset her complaint had not been handled by the CEO, as it had been addressed to them. She also wanted the landlord to send a copy of the referral letter sent by the manager to the health service.
  5. On 15 July 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint and confirmed that the manager had acted correctly and within procedure. It was satisfied that the manager had also acted correctly when referring the resident to health services out of concern for the resident’s well-being and that there was no data breach. It gave advice on how to make a subject access request. It said that it had not received the resident’s original complaint before 25 November 2020 and the stage one response therefore was only slightly outside of its timescales. £25 compensation was offered to remedy the delay in responding.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman. She stated that she wishes for the landlord to stop harassing her, to allow her to live peacefully in her home and not share her data with the police or other organisations. She also wishes for the landlord to remove all her personal data from its systems.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is important to be aware that it is outside the role of the Ombudsman to assess whether someone has or has not been the perpetrator of ASB. Rather, it is our role to assess the landlord’s response to ASB reports and investigate whether it responded in line with its legal obligations, its own policies and procedures and industry best practice.
  2. The landlord has a legal responsibility to investigate and attempt to resolve ASB where it receives reports of it. The resident’s assured tenancy agreement also sets out the rights and obligations of both the resident and the landlord. In the agreement’s list of resident obligations, section five states that residents must not “make or allow any noise which is loud enough or happens often enough to cause a nuisance or annoy your neighbours”. Section six states that residents “must not behave in a way which will cause, or is likely to cause, a nuisance to anyone”. Residents should also not “annoy, abuse, threaten or be violent towards anyone in the neighbour, other tenants or to our staff”.
  3. Where the landlord receives reports that may amount to a description of a breach of tenancy, the landlord is within its rights to investigate. Where these reports concern behaviour that meets the definition of ASB, the landlord is obliged to take appropriate action. The landlord’s ASB policy also sets out its position on how it handles these reports. It states that it will “use a range of preventative measures, early intervention and legal action to tackle ASB”. It also states that methods used will be “proportionate”.
  4. The evidence provided shows that the landlord had received multiple and detailed reports, including diary sheets, of ASB alleged to have been perpetrated by the resident. This Service recognises that the sending of a warning letter to the resident represented a reasonable and proportionate intervention from the landlord. As explained above, the Ombudsman is not commenting on whether or not the allegations made were correct, we are assessing the landlord’s response to the allegations.
  5. This Service has seen that the landlord sought professional advice before sending a letter to the resident. The letter set out a list of examples of the resident’s alleged behaviour. It warned that if the alleged behaviour had occurred, that it would be a serious breach of the resident’s tenancy conditions. It also warned that should further, verified, complaints of this nature be received, it may consider taking action against the resident’s tenancy. The landlord set out the tenancy conditions it considered were potentially being breached and stated it would be investigating. The letter was appropriately written and within the remit of the member of staff who sent it. It referred to “allegations” and did not directly accuse. This Service does not find that the letter constitutes harassment of the resident by the landlord, but that it was a reasonable and proportionateresponse to the reports it had received.
  6. The resident made counter-allegations of ASB from her neighbours. The landlord was correct when it stated it did not have jurisdiction over one of the neighbours, who is not a tenant of the landlord. It appropriately advised that such complaints would need to be dealt with by that particular neighbour’s landlord or the ASB team at the local authority.
  7. One of the neighbours that the resident made counter-claims of ASB against was a resident of the landlord. The resident’s complaint contained the following allegations:
  1. The neighbour using secret recording equipment in their flat.
  2. The neighbour causing a noise nuisance by loudly walking around their flat and slamming doors.
  3. The neighbour having a visitor who brings a dog that runs around barking in the garden.
  4. The neighbour having their relative staying for five days.
  1. The landlord should ensure that it follows up on reports of ASB. Normal, everyday noise such as walking and closing doors would not normally be considered a nuisance. A resident’s right to peaceful enjoyment of their home means they are allowed visitors, but the tenancy agreement states that those visitors should not cause a nuisance.
  2. The landlord did directly address the issue of the visitor’s dog and the sound recording equipment. The landlord stated that as a tool it often uses when investigating noise nuisance, it has no issue with the neighbour recording noise that is coming into their home. It also confirmed that its pet policy allowed for dogs to be on the premises, however it encouraged the resident to report if dogs became a nuisance between the hours of 11pm and 7am.
  3. This Service considers that the landlord had acted reasonably by not following up the resident’s allegations because the activities she had reported would not generally be regarded as meeting the threshold for ASB. The landlord’s complaint responses could have gone further to explain why the neighbour’s alleged behaviour may not meet the definition of antisocial behaviour, nor reach the threshold for further investigation in order to fully respond to the resident’s concerns.
  4. In summary, this Service finds that the landlord was entitled to not uphold the resident’s complaint and has acted within its published policies and procedures. It has also worked to try to ensure the needs of their residents are being met, regardless of whether they may be considered to be acting in breach of their tenancy.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident’s initial complaint letter is dated 9 September 2020. The landlord stated that it did not receive any complaint prior to 25 November 2020. Its complaint procedure gives ten working days for a stage one response to be issued following receipt of a complaint. The Ombudsman is not able to determine exactly when the landlord received the original complaint. Its stage one response on 16 December means the response was late by at least five working days. Whilst any delay in responding would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay to the stage one response does not appear to be excessive, based on the evidence provided.
  2. The landlord offered £25 compensation to remedy the stage one complaint response being late. This is a reasonable offer for the landlord to make. The landlord’s compensation policy shows that £25 is the maximum offer where a failure has resulted in a low impact. The complaint was not upheld and the delay was relatively short, therefore the detriment to the resident from this error is likely to have reasonably been assessed as low.
  3. The resident did not respond to the stage one complaint response within the given timeframe to request an escalation. She stated this was due to the Covid-19 lockdown and a message on the landlord’s website stating it was closed. The resident has given a reasonable explanation for not asking to escalate the complaint sooner. However, the landlord could only be expected to escalate the complaint through its complaints process when it was asked to. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord not to escalate the complaint until requested to by the Ombudsman.
  4. The resident raised concerns that her complaint letters were addressed to the landlord’s CEO, yet her complaint was dealt with by a manager at stage one of the complaints process. The landlord addressed this in its stage two response, confirming that it was unreasonable to expect the CEO to personally respond to all letters addressed to him. It is normal procedure in organisations of the landlord’s size that certain functions are delegated to specialist teams, as has happened in this case. Residents do not have a legal right to have their complaints answered by the CEO of the landlord’s organisation rather than another member of staff.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of allegations of antisocial behaviour satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. In the event that the offer of £25 compensation has not yet been accepted, it is recommended that the landlord re-offer the payment. Should the resident accept the offer, the landlord should make the payment as soon as is practical. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress by the landlord for this complaint is made on the basis that this earlier offer of compensation will be paid.