Peabody Trust (202015275)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015275

Peabody Trust

5 Novemebr 2021

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

The complaint refers to:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from his neighbour.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concern that he had not been advised of the ASB of his neighbour before his tenancy began.
3. The landlord’s handling of required repairs following a leak into the resident’s property.
4. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a block of flats. The resident has raised concern about ASB from his neighbour who lives in the flat above his, and their son. The neighbour has a vulnerability which contributed towards their ASB.
The landlord’s records show that it completed a welcome visit call to the resident on 2 October 2020, soon after the tenancy began. The resident raised concerns about the behaviour of his upstairs neighbour at this stage. The landlord advised that it was aware of the neighbour and that the resident should report any further ASB concerns directly. The evidence suggests that the resident continued to communicate with the landlord regarding this matter following this, however, the details of this communication have not been provided to this Service for review.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 February 2021 to report that the police had attended to complete a welfare check for the neighbour, but the neighbour did not answer despite being in the property. The resident informed the landlord that the neighbour’s property was unkempt and that they were causing noise disturbances during unsociable hours. He added that he was having difficulty sleeping as his neighbour regularly played loud music. He asked for a surveyor to check the soundproofing in the property. The landlord responded and advised that a surveyor visit would not be possible due to the Covid-19 restrictions currently in place. It confirmed that it would work alongside social services to support the neighbour.
On 21 February 2021, the neighbour caused a flood in their flat, which caused damage to the resident’s property. A contractor attended on the same day to resolve the flood and an electrician attended to remove some light fittings in the resident’s property.
The resident has said that he raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 21 February 2021 but did not receive a response. This communication has not been provided to the Ombudsman for review.
On 5 March 2021, the resident reported that there had been continuing issues with ASB and noise nuisance from the flat above. His neighbour was not currently residing in the property. However, their son had broken into the property and caused noise disturbance until around 2 am, including using the washing machine, moving furniture and stomping.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 9 March 2021 and asked it to respond to the resident’s concerns in line with its formal complaints procedure.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 23 March 2021 and explained the following:
1. The neighbour had vulnerabilities which contributed to their ASB. It was actively working with the agencies that supported the neighbour; however, it was not always able to advise the resident of the actions it was taking.
2. It had now logged an ASB case for the resident and advised him to report any ASB incidents on the diary sheets it had provided each fortnight. It was satisfied that it had handled the resident’s reports of ASB from his neighbour in line with its policies. It acknowledged that a formal ASB case could have been opened sooner but this would not have changed the actions that had been taken so far. The landlord confirmed that the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied with its response.
The resident responded on 6 April 2021 and explained the following:
1. He asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage two as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident explained that he felt the landlord had been negligent in moving him to the property knowing that his neighbour and their son were a danger to the public. He added that it had been aware of historical ASB his family had experienced in a previous property and the distress this caused.
2. He explained that he had only been able to complete a virtual viewing of the current property in September 2020 due to the Covid-19 restrictions. This did not give him the opportunity to identify issues with the upstairs neighbour. He said that had he seen the issues or been warned of the destructive neighbour, he would not have accepted the property, especially given his own personal circumstances.
3. He had been told that the previous tenant of his property had been moved under emergency circumstances as they had been bullied by the neighbour’s son. The resident confirmed that he had continued to contact the landlord as instructed and had also complained directly to the landlord’s complaints team but did not feel that the landlord had addressed the more specific elements of the complaint.
4. He explained that prior to the neighbour causing a flood in their property, he had reported his concerns about his neighbour to the landlord, but nothing had been done. He then reported this to the police, but they could not gain access as the neighbour would not answer their door. He advised that following the flood caused by his neighbour on 21 February 2021, he had contacted the landlord about the repairs needed but had received no response.
5. He said that he could no longer live with his neighbour in the property above and that the circumstances were negatively impacting his family’s mental health. He asked the landlord to move him to an alternative property in the area. Alternatively, he asked the landlord to soundproof his current property and for assurance that his neighbour would be moved to a property where they would receive support.
The landlord responded to the resident on 7 April 2021. It asked him to explicitly state why he remained dissatisfied with its stage one complaint response. It had raised another complaint to investigate the resident’s concerns about how he was housed at his current property. With regard to the ASB issues, the neighbour was considered extremely vulnerable, and it was working with their support services to ensure they were supported to sustain their tenancy. Evicting a tenant involved a legal process and it would need to gather evidence of tenancy breaches and ASB before it could pursue this. It stated that it was currently only carrying out essential repairs due to the impact of Covid-19 and confirmed that other day-to-day repairs would continue once lockdown restrictions had been lifted.
In his response, the resident confirmed that he was dissatisfied that he had contacted the landlord multiple times and he now had over £5000 worth of damage to his belongings as no one had listened. It was only after six months of reporting issues that he had been asked to complete diary sheets. He reiterated that he felt the landlord had been negligent. He understood that his neighbour was vulnerable and added that he and his family were now vulnerable due to the impact on their mental health. He also remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the leak into his property as it had not communicated or rectified the damage. He confirmed that he had not heard anything further since the electrician had removed his light fittings.
The landlord responded on 8 April 2021 and confirmed that it had raised a repair for the resident’s lighting to be reinstated and the property to be inspected. It said that it had added the resident’s comments to his current complaint and asked for specific emails that the resident had not received a response to.
The landlord’s lettings team emailed the resident on 8 April 2021 and explained that it was not advised of any ASB issues in the building as a general practice. It stated that the previous tenant had left the property as they needed a larger property and it was not always aware that a tenancy had ended or whether a new tenant would be subjected to ASB.
Following contact from the resident, the resident’s local MP contacted the landlord on 9 April 2020. The MP detailed the resident’s complaint and asked the landlord to investigate this matter as the situation was impacting the resident’s mental health and wellbeing.
The resident continued to report issues with his neighbour and their son, including that the neighbour’s son had left a gas canister near his front door. He was then awoken at around 5am by the neighbour’s son shouting and being abusive. He was concerned about the safety of his family and his neighbour. The landlord advised that it would contact the appropriate agencies to make them aware of this incident. It confirmed that it was discussing the resident’s case with its in-house legal team for further advice. A further incident occurred as the neighbour’s son had been outside of the property shouting at either the neighbour or contractors. The police were called by another tenant of the building and the landlord confirmed that the matter was being dealt with by a support worker.
The landlord emailed the resident on 15 April 2021 and said that it had not heard from the resident since its email on 8 April 2021 regarding his complaint. it confirmed that it was not attempting to block the resident from escalating his complaint but required the specific emails which he felt he did not receive a satisfactory response to.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 21 April 2021 and explained that the resident wanted his concerns handled as one complaint rather than two separate complaints. The landlord was asked to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two within five working days and provide a written response within the timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
On 21 April 2021, the landlord confirmed that the complaint would be dealt with under stage two of its complaints procedure and said it would update the resident by 21 May 2021. On the same day, it emailed the resident and confirmed that the repair appointments had been arranged for 28 April 2021 in order to make good the damage following the leak, reinstate the electrics and fix a faulty air vent. The landlord responded to the MP enquiry on 23 April 2021 and confirmed the actions it had taken.
The resident continued to report ASB from his neighbour and their son during this time and the landlord confirmed that it would write to the neighbour about the new concerns raised.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 29 April 2021 and asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint and provide its stage two complaint response within five working days.
The landlord emailed the resident on 30 April 2021 and confirmed that the electrics in his property had been made safe. It noted that the contractors had advised that there was no damage apart from a small crack which would not be covered by a repair. It asked the resident to send photos of the damage if this was not correct. The resident responded and expressed dissatisfaction that the survey of his property was completed ten weeks after the flood. He added that there was water damage to the ceilings in his bedroom and lounge, the skirting boards in his bedroom had cracked paint and the tiles in his bathroom had discoloured due to water damage. Following this, the landlord raised repair orders for the resident’s ceilings to be painted and the tiles in the bathroom to be checked.
The resident continued to report ongoing ASB and noise nuisance and attached various video recordings. The landlord confirmed that it was in regular communication with the neighbour, who was taking steps to improve their behaviour. The resident reported that the neighbour was using their washing machine throughout the night which was affecting his sleep. The landlord spoke to the neighbour who apologised and said that this would stop. He also reported that he had called the police as the neighbour and their son had been fighting. The neighbour had banged on his door apologising for the arguments. The landlord explained that the neighbour was responding positively to its communication as they had apologised and knew their tenancy may be at stake. The landlord confirmed that it would continue to discuss the issues with the neighbour in person and asked the resident to continue to use diary sheets to monitor the ASB.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 May 2021 and explained that there had been delay in completing its review of his complaint due to an increase in the complaints it was currently managing. It confirmed that the resident would receive a response by 28 May 2021.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 28 May 2021 and explained the following:
1. It acknowledged that the resident remained dissatisfied with its explanation about why he was offered the property despite it being aware of his neighbour’s antisocial behaviour. It noted that the resident felt he should have been made aware of the issues surrounding his neighbour as he had been in communication with the landlord prior to accepting the property. It confirmed that its lettings process was followed correctly as its lettings team would not have been aware of the neighbour’s circumstances.
2. It confirmed that it had handled the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its policies and procedures. It acknowledged that it had been difficult to progress this matter due to the vulnerabilities of his neighbour. It explained that it was responsible for ensuring that any progression of enforcement action was always evidenced. It could only take enforcement action where there was a confirmed breach of tenancy. If there were vulnerabilities, the courts would expect it to have exhausted all available actions.
3. It confirmed that repair works had now been arranged for 2 June 2021 to complete work to the internal damage in hallway bathroom and bedroom and living room ceilings. It provided the contact details of its re-housing team as the resident had said that he wished to move from the current property.
4. It noted that a formal complaint about the ASB could have been logged earlier, however, an earlier escalation for either the lettings or ASB issues would not have changed the outcome of the review. It offered the resident £30 compensation in recognition of the delays in raising an ASB complaint and providing its stage two complaint response.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied that the landlord did not inform him prior to the start of his tenancy about the anti-social behaviour issues involving his neighbour. He added that he was unhappy with how the landlord had handled his reports of anti-social behaviour since his tenancy began. He also explained that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation offer for complaint-handling delays.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that he feels that the ASB issues have impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the ASB caused by a neighbour and the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident and his family experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB from his neighbour.

It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether residents were subjected to ASB or nuisance. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider the appropriateness and adequacy of the actions taken by the landlord to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports of noise and ASB. The Ombudsman considers whether the landlord has acted reasonably, proportionately and in line with its policies and procedures.
In line with its policy, the landlord has an obligation to investigate reports of ASB and respond appropriately. The resident has accused his neighbours of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour, which would fall under the heading of ASB. Therefore, the landlord would have been expected to investigate and take reasonable steps to resolve the ASB. A landlord should generally only consider taking formal action if informal attempts have not successfully resolved the issues. It should also consider any vulnerabilities or disabilities when deciding whether enforcement action is appropriate, as it may be more suitable to liaise with support services in some cases.
It is noted that the resident began to express concern about the wellbeing of his neighbour in October 2020 at which point the landlord acted reasonably by explaining that it was aware of the neighbour and confirming that the resident should report any ASB incidents directly. In this case, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports of excessive noise and ASB from his neighbour by asking the resident to report any incidents directly and asking him to complete diary sheets from March 2021.
The landlord has acknowledged that it could have opened a formal ASB case sooner but added that this would not have changed the actions it had taken to support the resident and his neighbour during the time period. This is reasonable as the landlord had previously responded to each of the resident’s reports of ASB in the same way it would if diary entries were completed, and it was working with the neighbour to ensure that they were receiving support. The landlord acted appropriately by working alongside relevant third-party agencies such as the police and social services, as well as seeking legal advice to ensure the correct actions were followed in view of the neighbour’s vulnerabilities. The landlord would only be expected to provide limited information to the resident concerning his neighbour. Nonetheless, it has shown that it was in regular communication with the resident during this period and is continuing to take steps to find a resolution by regularly contacting the neighbour.
For a landlord to pursue an eviction against a perpetrator of ASB, it would be expected to show the court that it had attempted to resolve the matter informally such as through mediation or tenancy warnings before taking legal action. It would also need strong supporting evidence to show that the behaviour was serious and prolonged. In this case, given the ongoing nature of the ASB and noise nuisance experienced by the resident, the landlord acted appropriately by warning the neighbour that their tenancy may be at risk if they did not improve their behaviour. It is noted that the resident wants his neighbour to be moved from the property and into accommodation more suitable for their needs. The landlord acted reasonably by working alongside relevant support agencies who would be better suited to decide whether this would be appropriate given the neighbour’s needs.
It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to contact the police in regard to any incidents involving the neighbour’s son as it had been determined that they were not permitted in the neighbour’s property. In line with the tenancy agreement, the neighbour would be responsible for ensuring that visitors to the property did not cause nuisance to other residents and the landlord acted appropriately by engaging in regular discussion with the neighbour regarding this.
Whilst the landlord took reasonable steps to support the resident by communicating regularly to manage his expectations, there is a lack of evidence to confirm whether the resident was signposted to any relevant support agencies during this time. Given the resident’s claims that the ASB and noise nuisance was impacting his family’s health. It may have been helpful for the landlord to consider referring the resident to external support services. It is, therefore, recommended that the landlord takes steps to ensure that victims of ASB are adequately signposted to support services where appropriate, in line with its ASB policy. The landlord also acted reasonably by providing the resident with information on how he could apply to move properties if he wished.
Given the neighbour’s vulnerabilities, it was reasonable for the landlord to work alongside support agencies and not to pursue formal action at this stage. The landlord has kept the resident regularly updated and responded to his reports of ASB within reasonable timeframes.

Advise given on ASB by his neighbour before his tenancy began.

The resident has explained that he feels the landlord had been negligent in moving him to the property knowing the history of ASB from his neighbour and their son. This Service cannot determine whether negligence has taken place, as negligence is a legal term which is better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concern and any inconvenience errors in its communication may have caused.
The landlord has acted appropriately by responding to the resident’s concern and confirming its position. It explained that its lettings team were not aware of the antisocial behaviour of the neighbour prior to the resident accepting the property, nor was it aware of the circumstances in which a previous tenancy had ended. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had expressly asked about ongoing ASB at the property or was deliberately misinformed by the landlord prior to accepting the tenancy. The landlord would not be obliged to give specific details regarding existing tenants due to data protection. As such, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of this matter.
It is noted that the resident has said that if he had been able to view the property prior to moving in, he would have had the opportunity to identify potential ASB issues and could have decided not to accept the property. We cannot comment on the decision the resident may have made, however, the restrictions in place as a result of Covid-19 were outside of the landlord’s control and it was reasonable that the property could not be viewed in person.

Repairs following a leak into his property caused by his neighbour.

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would be responsible for the electricity supply to the resident’s property including repairs needed to electrical outlets and light fittings. It would be responsible for repairing the plastering; however, internal painting and wallpapering would usually be the resident’s responsibility. The landlord has various timescales for different types of repairs. Its emergency repairs are to be attended within four hours and made safe. In some cases, follow-up appointments may be needed to fully resolve the issue. Non-urgent repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days, with an average target of ten days.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it would only complete essential repairs from December 2020 due to the restrictions in place as a result of Covid-19. It listed essential repairs as repairs needed to electrics including light fittings and plastering among others. Non-essential repairs included repairs to skirting boards and internal painting and wallpapering of a property. It is noted that the landlord’s timescales may have been affected during this time in which case the landlord would be expected to keep the resident informed of any potential delays and confirm the reasons why.
In this case, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for contractors to attend the property on 21 February 2021 to resolve the leak and make safe the resident’s lighting in line with its emergency repair timescales. However, following this there was a significant delay in reinstating the lighting and completing a survey of the damage caused, until 28 April 2021. It was reasonable for there to be some delay during this period because of the lockdown restrictions in place. However, the landlord would have been expected to regularly communicate with the resident and provide updates on the status of his repairs, which it did not do satisfactorily until April 2021. There is a lack of evidence to confirm whether the resident had pursued the repairs prior to his communication in April 2021, however, he noted that he had not previously received a response from the landlord and did not know when and if repairs would be carried out.
Furthermore, repairs needed to reinstate the lighting in the resident’s property should have been considered an essential repair in line with the landlord’s updated policy and completed in line with published timescales. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to survey the property at an earlier date to determine whether any essential repairs were needed following the damage caused to the property by the leak. This did not happen until 28 April 2021, which is significantly outside of the landlord’s 28 calendar day timescale for non-urgent repairs. The landlord has not offered a satisfactory explanation for this delay.
It was reasonable for the contractor to initially advise that a crack in the ceiling would not be covered in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord would not have been obliged to complete decoration work to the internal parts of the resident’s property as it was not responsible for the flood and internal decoration would be the resident’s responsibility in line with its policies. It was reasonable for it to arrange this following communication with the resident and the landlord acted above its obligations by arranging the painting work to be completed.
As part of his escalation request on 6 and 7 April 2021, the resident raised concern that he had not heard from the landlord regarding the repairs needed to his property following the leak. These concerns were also raised by the resident’s MP on 9 April 2021 and again by the resident on 3 May 2021. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the resident’s dissatisfaction in line with its complaints procedure. It is noted that the landlord mentioned that a repair date had been booked for the decoration works in its final response on 28 May 2021. However, the landlord did not investigate its handling of the matter despite being given the opportunity to do so.
There has been service failure by the landlord in regard to its handling of the repairs needed to the resident’s property following a leak due to its poor initial communication regarding this matter, the delay in reinstating the lighting and surveying the property for damage, and its failure to address the resident’s dissatisfaction in its complaint response. In view of this, the landlord should offer compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two-stage complaint process. At stage one, the landlord should provide a response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should provide a response within 15 working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord should contact the resident to explain the delay and provide a new timescale.
The resident has advised that he raised a complaint with the landlord in February 2021, the details of this communication have not been provided to this Service for review. Following this, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 9 March 2021 asking it to consider the resident’s complaint. The stage one complaint response was issued on 23 March 2021 in line with its timescales at stage one.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 and 7 April 2021 confirming the reasons for his dissatisfaction with its stage one complaint response. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two at this stage as he had given clear reasons about his dissatisfaction with its handling of his ASB reports. This was not escalated until 21 April 2021 following the Ombudsman’s involvement. The final response was issued on 28 May 2021 which was outside of the landlord’s 15 working day timescale at stage two. However, the landlord managed the resident’s expectations by contacting him on 20 May 2021, advising him of the delay and providing a new timescale.
It was reasonable for the landlord to raise a new stage one complaint for the resident given that his comments related to how he was housed at the property did not appear to form part of his initial complaint. However, the landlord’s final decision indicates that the response on 8 April 2021 by its lettings team was considered to be its stage one complaint response on this matter. This was likely to have caused some confusion for the resident as this did not appear to be a formal stage one response, nor did it provide direction on how he could escalate his concerns further. It is noted that the resident had asked for his complaints to be handled as one and the landlord was informed of this on 21 April 2021. Following this the landlord acted reasonably by merging the two existing complaints.
The landlord has admitted that there were delays in issuing its stage two response and offered the resident £30 compensation in view of this. This amount is not considered proportionate given the level of involvement by both the resident and the Ombudsman in resolving matters and the landlord’s failure to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two on 7 April 2021. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, compensation in the range of £50 – £250 is appropriate in instances of service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. For example, failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact.
Overall, the resident experienced significant difficulty in escalating his complaint despite providing clear reasons as to why he remained dissatisfied. The landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the level of inconvenience caused to the resident during this period.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme):
1. There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behavior and noise nuisance from his neighbour.
2. There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concern that he had not been advised of the antisocial behaviour of his neighbour before his tenancy began.
3. There was service failure by the landlord in regard to its handling of the repairs needed to the resident’s property following a leak.
4. There was service failure by the landlord in regard to its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

Given the neighbour’s vulnerabilities, it was appropriate for the landlord to work alongside the police and support agencies and warn the neighbour that their tenancy may be at risk. It was in regular communication with the resident and responded to his reports in a timely manner.
There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was deliberately misinformed by the landlord prior to accepting the tenancy. It has provided a satisfactory explanation as to why the resident was not informed of potential ASB at the property and data protection requirements must be considered in this case.
There was poor initial communication regarding the resident’s repairs and a delay in reinstating the lighting and surveying the property for damage which should have been completed sooner under the landlord’s revised repairs policy. The landlord also failed to address this aspect of the resident’s dissatisfaction in its complaint responses despite being given the opportunity to do so.
The resident experienced difficulty in escalating his complaint; there was subsequent delay in the handling of the complaint and the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the level of inconvenience to the resident.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £200, comprised of:
  1. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delay in reinstating the lighting at the resident’s property and surveying the property for damage as well as its poor communication regarding this matter.
  2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling (This amount includes the £30 previously offered).

Recommendations

It is recommended that, in line with its ASB policy, the landlord takes steps to ensure that victims of ASB are adequately signposted to support services where appropriate.