Peabody Trust (202104206)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104206

Peabody Trust

14 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of verbal abuse and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has held a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord since November 1994 and lives on the ground floor of a house which has been converted into two flats. Each flat has its own entrance and there is a shared front garden area.

Summary of events

The resident and his wife were experiencing verbal abuse and noise from the neighbour in the flat above them. The noise is described as doors slamming, and “running” noises on ceiling above. The resident reported these issues to his landlord by letter in February 2021. He did not receive a response, so contacted the landlord by phone on 19 April 2021 and requested a telephone call back.
The landlord called the resident back by phone and requested diary sheets which contained the date, time and description of the verbal abuse. The landlord would then review the completed diary sheets to determine if this was a one off incident, or a persistent pattern of behaviour. The landlord also requested additional evidence in the form of audio and video recordings from the resident.
The resident contacted this Service in May 2021, as he was not satisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issues raised. This Service asked the landlord to make contact with the resident to try and resolve the issues raised.
The landlord responded, by issuing a stage one reply to the resident, on 7 June 2021, which stated the following:
1. The resident had reported anti-social behaviour from their neighbour in the form of verbal abuse. Following this report, the resident was asked to provide diary sheets, or audio and video recordings, to determine if this was a one off incident or a persistent pattern of behaviour. The landlord spoke to the neighbour in question, and they made a counter allegation of ASB about the resident.
2. Due to the long standing and on-going history between the resident and their neighbour, the landlord offered mediation. However, this offer was turned down by the resident.
3. The landlord arranged a meeting with the resident and local Police on the 15 June 2021 to agree next steps. After the meeting, both neighbours would be contacted if an action plan was required.
4. No evidence was provided by either resident or the neighbour in support of their concerns regarding ASB. In the absence of evidence, the landlord was not able to carry out any formal enforcement action. The case was closed due to a lack of evidence.
5. The landlord says that the letter the resident sent to them in February 2021 “appears to have been lost” . They appreciate the resident had to chase the landlord for a reply and offered an apology for the delay in raising the complaint and for any distress this had caused the resident. The landlord offered £25 compensation, which they said was in line with their policy which provided discretion to offer compensation, where service may have fallen below expected levels.
6. Whilst the landlord upheld the complaint handling issues, they did not uphold the residents complaint regarding their handling of the ASB issues raised.
7. The resident was asked to share any new evidence of ASB with the landlord, which they would in turn review and investigate accordingly.
The resident phoned the landlord on 7 June 2021 and stated that he was not happy to go ahead with the planned meeting with the landlord and the Police, as he did not think that there was not enough information to follow through with a meeting
On 8 September 2021 the landlord spoke with the resident by phone. The landlord provided the following update:
1. The resident did not want the meeting with the Police to go ahead and told the landlord this, however, on the 15 June the landlord and Police turned up anyway.
2. The resident advised that he was not in a position to write diary sheets as he is 59 years old and has health conditions. He also strongly felt that the landlord should take enforcement against his neighbour, based on his personal testimony. The landlord reminded the resident that they need dates and times in order to investigate the issues raised.
On 26 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the neighbour above them was slamming doors again in response to any noise from their flat. The resident was reminded that he will need to provide evidence in order for the landlord to investigate whether or not the noise was ongoing and unreasonable. As the resident was quite distressed about the noise, the landlord agreed to have an informal chat with the neighbour upstairs, but made it clear that this was as much action as they could take without the required evidence.
The landlord’s records from October 2021 report that the two neighbours had historically made allegations about each other, but that no evidence had been provided to support any of the allegations of ASB made.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 November 2021 to confirm that his complaint had been escalated to the second stage of the complaints process and he will receive a response by 1 December 2021.
Stage two reply was issued 2 December 2021 and stated the following:
1. The landlord explained that their complaints policy says that complaints relating to ASB are investigated in respect of how the ASB has been managed by them and not about the actual ASB incident itself.
2. The landlord had spoken to the resident’s neighbour about the allegations and asked them to be mindful of their language; in doing so, the neighbour made counter allegations of ASB. These counter allegations were investigated, but no action was taken, due to a lack of evidence.
3. The landlord was sorry to hear that the neighbour’s behaviour was having an effect on the resident’s wellbeing. However, the landlord can only take enforcement action where there has been a confirmed breach of tenancy and must have obtained substantial evidence before taking such enforcement action. The landlord did not have enough evidence to back up the allegations of ASB, as no diary sheets, video or audio evidence was provided.
4. The landlord offers mediation when conflicts arise between neighbours, but this offer was declined by the resident.
5. The landlord had assessed how it had managed the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour and was satisfied that the neighbourhoods’ team had followed anti-social behaviour procedures correctly.
6. The resident’s letter sent in February 2021 does not appear to have been received by the landlord. The resident chased this up in April, but was not contacted straight away. Additionally, the resident contacted his landlord on 3 March 2021 and asked for a call back and the landlord responded on 11 March 2021. The resident contacted the landlord again in May 2021, asking for another call back, but the call back was not made until the resident had chased the landlord again.
7. The landlord apologised for this lack of communication and a revised offer of compensation for £95 was made. This comprised of £45 for lack of communication and £50 for the delay in escalating the complaint.
The resident referred his complaint to this service in July 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised by the resident from February 2021 until 2 December 2022. The resident has raised new issues relating to the handling of refuse bins and a request for soundproofing after the landlord issued their final complaint response on 2 December 2022 and has been advised by this Service, to allow the landlord an opportunity to address these issues first. This service appreciates that the soundproofing issue follows on from the same issues under investigation here. However, as this represents a development on the case since the completion of the complaints process, it cannot be investigated here.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of verbal abuse and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour

The landlord anti-social behaviour policy states that:
1. The types of behaviour that we consider to be anti-social include: verbal abuse, harassment, intimidation or threatening behaviour and repeated prolonged high-level noise nuisance.
2. Low level disagreements between neighbours where there is no breach of tenancy, lease or licence will generally not be considered to be ASB cases. However, we may offer mediation and other support to help customers resolve these issues amongst themselves.
3. We will allow ASB to be reported to us in different ways, including in person, in writing, over the phone, by email and on our website.
4. We will promote the view that everyone has the right to their own chosen lifestyle providing this does not impact adversely on the quality of life of others. We will not usually take action where a complaint concerns behaviour that results from different lifestyles, or which would not generally be considered to be unreasonable.
5. We will only investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours.
6. We will encourage and expect residents and customers to take responsibility for solving personal disputes between themselves where appropriate. This may include collating evidence, liaising with other agencies and taking part in mediation.
7. We will close a case after investigation and appropriate action is taken and where there are no reports for a period of 6 weeks or no further action can be taken.
8. We will refer all crime, including threats or acts of violence, to the police.
The landlord’s actions and complaint responses were reasonable and in line with its ASB policy, as outlined above. It asked the resident to complete diary sheets and contacted the neighbour to discuss the allegations made against them. The resident was not able to provide diary sheets, or any audio or video evidence to reflect the nature or frequency of the ASB occurring and this would have limited the landlord’s investigations.
As allegations of verbal abuse were made, the landlord correctly acted in accordance with its own policy and made the Safer Neighbourhood Team aware. However, the resident did not want to engage with the Police. As such, there were limited steps that the landlord could take to resolve the issues, based on the evidence it had received.
It is noted that the resident’s neighbour made counter-allegations of noise nuisance from the resident. The landlord would be expected to treat all reports of noise and ASB impartially and it was reasonable for the landlord to notify the resident and discuss the counter-allegations with them.
In order to resolve the continued conflict between the resident and his neighbour, mediation was offered. Mediation is not compulsory, however, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this as an option, as it can help to resolve neighbour disputes. Mediation is also mentioned as an option in clause 38 of the residents tenancy agreement: which states: “If a complaint is made against a tenant, the landlord may try to mediate between the people in dispute if requested”
This Service spoke with the resident on Tuesday 30 May 2023. The resident explained that they had taken part in mediation with a previous neighbour but it was not successful and this is one of the reasons why they did not want to take part in mediation again. This Service appreciates why the resident may be reluctant to take part in any further mediation based on their previous experience. However, it is possible that mediation could help to open lines of communication between the resident and his neighbour. As such, mediation remains an option the resident may wish to consider in future.
This Service is of the view that ultimately there was limited evidence available to the landlord and it was reasonable for the landlord to have taken no further action at that stage. This however doesn’t take anything away from the stressfulness of the situation for the resident. This Service appreciates that the situation between the resident and their neighbours would have been very distressing and challenging for them to deal with.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that compensation payments are made when a person has experienced a delay or has incurred additional costs because of a service failure on their part or if they have failed to carry out a service within their published guidelines. For example, if there has been poor complaint handling. The policy defines poor complaint handling as not adhering to the complaints procedure or policy or managing the complaint effectively through regular communication and proactive management or investigation. The policy recommends compensation up to £100.
In assessing a claim for compensation, the policy states that the following factors will be considered:
1. The severity of the time, trouble and inconvenience suffered and whether this was reasonably foreseeable by us.
2. Recognition of any failure to follow policies and procedures.
3. The time taken to resolve the matter.
Where there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. It is clear that the resident would have been frustrated by the landlords lack of response and then delay in responding to his complaint. This Service is of the view that in this particular case, the landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident for its failings. It also offered to put things right by awarding compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience that was clearly experienced by the resident, due to the delay in the landlords complaint handling.
This compensation award was in line with the landlords own remedies guidance, which states that amounts in this range are suitable in instances of service failure which had an impact on the resident but were of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of verbal abuse and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of compensation and an apology to acknowledge its delayed handling of the resident’s complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, offers reasonable redress.

Reasons

The landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with its ASB policy. This is because it made it clear to the resident what it would need in terms of evidence, in order to investigate the reports made. The landlord also explained that a lack of evidence would hinder them taking tenancy enforcement action. It also offered mediation as an alternative solution, spoke with the resident and neighbour with a view to calming the situation and also worked in partnership with local Police to attempt to resolve the situation.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for its failure to act in accordance with its policies in terms of delayed complaint handling and lack of customer service and put this right by offering £95 compensation. This resolution provided reasonable redress to the resident for the inconvenience and distress the failure caused to them.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £95 as previously agreed, as the finding of redress was found on this basis.
It is recommended that the landlord consider amending its future tenancy agreements to request that residents residing in properties situated on the first floor and above install floor coverings, such as carpets or rugs, to mitigate noise transference between neighbours. Attached below is a link to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise nuisance. The advice on page 20 and 21 may be useful in this regard. https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Spotlight-Noise-complaints-final-report-October-2022.pdf