Peabody Trust (202128533)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128533

Peabody Trust

31 January 2024

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 response to:
1. the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour and
2. the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of landlord staff.
We will also look at the landlord’s complaint handling as part of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

Scope

The resident has provided information about her ongoing reports concerning antisocial behaviour (ASB). She has also raised another complaint with the Ombudsman about her dissatisfaction with the ongoing approach of the landlord. However, the final response to this complaint was provided by the landlord on 2 September 2022 and this investigation has therefore focused on the events referred to in that final response.
In its Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), the Ombudsman sets out a 2 stage complaints process which ensures that complaint processes are not unduly long. The Code also encourages the early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents and recognises that there may be times where appropriate action can be agreed immediately. Any decision to try and resolve a concern must be taken in agreement with the resident and the landlord should ensure that this is reflected in its records. Landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. The Code states that it is not appropriate to have extra named stages as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents.
At the relevant time of this complaint, the landlord said it operated a 2 stage policy. It did not provide a timeframe for when it would respond to the resident at each of these stages.
The landlord also operated an ASB policy, dated March 2018. Some of the behaviour it identified as being ASB was high level noise nuisance. It said that where there were low level disagreements between neighbours and no breach of tenancy, it would not generally be considered to be an ASB case. However, it said it could offer mediation in those cases. It said that all residents who wished to report an incident of ASB would be assessed for their risk and vulnerability to ensure the appropriate level of support was provided and any safeguarding issues identified. It said it would only investigate noise nuisance where the noise was frequently excessive in volume and duration and occurred at unreasonable hours. It said it would encourage and expect residents to take responsibility for solving personal disputes between themselves where appropriate.
In October 2022 the Ombudsman issued a spotlight report on noise complaints. It set out the problems with landlords tackling noise reports under their ASB policies. It said that it was unfair for the resident complaining and the resident complained about for noise to be treated as something it is not as this entrenches disputes and mismanages expectations. Unintentionally, noise can be called ‘low level’ because it was seen through the prism of ASB when it was causing distress to the resident. The report discussed how residents were often given countless diary sheets to no avail. While the Ombudsman’s spotlight report was published after the stage 2 response in this complaint, it sets out the Ombudsman’s observations about how landlords addressed noise and ASB complaints around this time and reflects our expectations of good practice.
The landlord has a compensation and remedies policy. When considering payments for time, trouble and inconvenience, it says it can offer up to £200 for minor disruption, which it considers would be a service failure that has a low impact and/or low effort to resolve. It also offers payments for poor complaint handling, between £1 and £250. A moderate failure is considered to warrant a payment of between £51 to £150. This is for a failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure or to correctly investigate a complaint, resulting in inconvenience and effort to progress.
The resident has an assured non-shorthold tenancy with the landlord which began on 14 February 2022.
On 10 March 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. She said:
1. She was ‘uncomfortable’ with the way her neighbourhood manager handled her complaint about noise nuisance in relation to her neighbour. She said she did not like the way “…she comes across.”
2. She said she felt the neighbourhood manager was hesitant about speaking to her neighbours about the noise she had reported and had said that DIY was allowed after 10pm.
3. She said the neighbourhood manager offered to speak to her neighbour but the resident said she would speak to them first. However, she said her neighbourhood manager than later refused to speak to her neighbour.
4. She also complained that she felt the neighbourhood manager had contacted her when she first began her tenancy and had wanted to get through the phone call as soon as possible.
On the same day the landlord responded to say that it had logged her correspondence as an expression of dissatisfaction and it had been transferred to the neighbourhood manager’s manager to investigate.
On 24 March 2022 the landlord recorded that a manager had called the resident to discuss the complaint.
On 28 March 2022 the resident said she had not had a response from the landlord. She said if she didn’t receive a response she would have to take action against the landlord.
On 3 April 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. It had spoken with her on 24 March 2022 and she had said that the neighbourhood manager had been unhelpful with regards to her complaints about noise issues from her neighbour.
2. It had spoken with the neighbourhood manager complained about and she had said:
  1. She had understood that the resident had told her the DIY stopped by 9pm and she had said that DIY was permitted between 8am and 10pm.
  2. She had suggested the resident speak to her neighbour. (The landlord said this was a common approach as it encourages neighbours to speak to each other as it is a good way to resolve issues.)
  3. She had advised the resident to keep diary sheets.
  4. the resident had mentioned repair issues to the officer during the welcome call and she had raised those with the repairs team.
3. The landlord said it was sorry if the resident felt the call was rushed and could arrange for the neighbourhood manager to contact her to discuss any other matters she might like to discuss. A home visit could be arranged if she preferred.
4. It said it had received her diary sheets and her neighbourhood manager would be in contact shortly to discuss further.
There is no record of any consideration given to the diary sheets the landlord referred to and no record of any initial response from the resident to the landlord’s communication.
The resident took her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she had only received a verbal response to her complaint. We asked the landlord to respond and it then registered the complaint at stage 1 on 24 May 2022.
On 24 June 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It said this was in line with the enquiry the resident had made to us. The key points made were:
1. The resident had contacted the landlord’s Customer Care Line (CCL) on 5 April 2022 to report noise nuisance from her neighbour in the form of doors slamming.
2. The CCL advisor had told her this did not constitute ASB and issued the resident with a ‘noise pack’. The resident was advised to complete diary sheets and to return them so that it could assess if a case should be opened for investigation.
3. The complaint’s reviewer said he had tried to speak with the resident that day but the resident was heading out and unable to speak, but expressed dissatisfaction about how long it had taken the landlord to respond to her complaint.
4. The reviewer said that the resident and he agreed a time to talk on 6 July 2022 so that the landlord could better understand the ASB allegations against her neighbour.
On 4 August 2022 the resident made further reports about noise issues from her neighbour. She said that they were “purposely banging against my wall”. She described the noise as being very loud and that it “…can cause a big disturbance.” She said she contacted the police in June about the noise. She said they told her they wouldn’t visit but she had later seen them at the property.
The landlord responded on the same day. It attached a noise nuisance leaflet and diary sheets to its response. It asked the resident to complete the diary sheets with a minimum of 2 weeks evidence. It said that her neighbourhood manager would then review them.
It said that if at any point the resident felt threatened or intimidated by her neighbour, she should call the police and inform the landlord.
The following day the resident made a further report about her neighbour. She said her neighbour was hitting objects against the wall whenever she was in the kitchen. She said when she spoke to the neighbour about the noise in the past, she felt he was aggressive. She believed that 2 of her neighbours were conspiring together against her as she had heard them “…talking and laughing about what they will do next to try and upset me and cause a nuisance.” She also said she had found egg shells behind a bush that was based directly in front of the property and outside her back garden door.
The landlord responded the same day. It said that it could see it had already responded the day before and it said it would repeat that advice. The resident responded that the landlord should “…do something about these kind of people.” The landlord again said that it had provided all the advice it could provide and asked the resident to complete diary sheets.
On 17 August 2022 we wrote to the landlord. We asked it to provide the resident with a stage 2 response, having been told by the resident that she had escalated her complaint on 8 July 2022.
On 18 August 2022 a member of the landlord’s complaints team confirmed that the resident’s complaint had been escalated to stage 2 of its complaints process. It said it aimed to provide the resident with a response by 25 August 2022.
A member of the complaints team began the review of the file but sent an internal email to other staff saying that she could not see that a stage 1 complaint response was on file. She asked for copies of any notes or response provided. She also noted that the resident had made several allegations about noise nuisance and asked had the landlord been able to prove any of the allegations made or if anyone had spoken to the resident’s neighbours, who she alleged made the noise.
On 19 August 2022 an internal landlord record reported that the resident had been rude to members of staff in the past. It was noted that when the resident was told the landlord had not received diary sheets the resident claimed to have sent, the resident responded angrily. Internally, the landlord said that the diary sheets had not been received. The landlord took the view that “…if there are no diary sheets then we cannot evidence it.”
On 2 September 2022 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. Internally, the landlord noted that the resident had made recent allegations about noise. It said that if the resident had not been contacted, it should contact her to see if there was any extra support that could be provided. It noted that the resident had said she felt nervous about approaching her neighbours directly and said that as the resident had raised this issue with the Ombudsman, it had to show it was exploring all avenues to resolve the matter.
The main points made in the stage 2 response were:
1. The resident had raised an expression of dissatisfaction about how an officer had approached the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. The landlord responded to this on 3 April 2022.
2. The resident then contacted the landlord on 5 April 2022 and said that her neighbour was slamming doors. She was emailed diary sheets and advised that the noise she described was not ASB, but more likely household noise.
3. The resident had contacted the landlord again on 11 May 2022 saying that she had uploaded diary sheets to the Customer Hub and wanted to speak with her neighbourhood manager. The landlord said the records showed that the neighbourhood manager tried to call her several times but did not receive a response.
4. The landlord’s stage 1 response had not applied its compensation policy to the acknowledged delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. It apologised for this omission.
5. In relation to the noise nuisance investigation, it said that once it could be established that noise was being constantly experienced, the landlord’s neighbourhood team might use sound recording equipment to identify the level and type of noise being reported. It said that to be deemed as a nuisance, the disturbance or sounds must fall into the specific categories of being excessive, loud or constant. It said that this was outside of the ‘general household noise’ which was not considered as ASB or noise nuisance under the landlord’s ASB policy. It said that was why the Customer Hub had informed the resident that door slamming would not immediately constitute ASB. It said it could also try mediation with her neighbours, if the resident wished to engage.
6. It said that the landlord could only act where there was a confirmed breach of tenancy and there was not enough evidence to confirm that the actions complained of were “solely intentional” to cause the resident inconvenience and distress.
7. It said the landlord did not undertake sound proofing within its properties as research showed this did not reduce noise transference enough to make a significant difference and so it would not be cost effective for the landlord.
8. It offered the resident £175 for its delay responding to her complaint at stage 1 and the delay in escalating her complaint. It offered a further £100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience taken to pursue the management of the matter.
On 4 September 2022 the resident sent an email to another officer at the landlord. She used inappropriate language and accused the landlord of allowing her neighbours to conduct ASB. She denied that the landlord had contacted her. It was not clear on which occasion she meant but it appears likely she was referring to the call the landlord claimed to have made to her on 6 July 2022. She said the landlord had done nothing other than make the situation worse. She said the landlord had failed to contact her to ask for her side of the story and she said she intended to take her complaint further.
On 5 September 2022 an internal landlord email said that the landlord had not received the diary sheets referred to in March 2022 from the resident. It also said that the case should “…never have been opened as ASB.”
Following receiving compensation in relation to this complaint, the resident sent diary sheets to the landlord in October and November 2022. The resident says the issue with ASB is ongoing and the landlord has not been helpful.

Assessment and findings

On the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour.

It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB or to make any findings on the noise issues the resident reported. Rather, our role is to assess whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
During the course of this investigation the resident has informed this Service that there have been further incidents of ASB from her neighbour. Though it is appreciated that this would have been distressing for the resident, the Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. This investigation report, therefore, concerns the matters which were the subject of the resident’s complaint in March 2022and which were the subject of the landlord’s final response dated 2 September 2022.
In its responses to the resident’s reports about noise from her neighbours and/or ASB and the formal complaint the landlord:
1. Called the resident to discuss the ASB reports.
2. Asked the resident to provide diary sheets to build up a picture of the noise she referred to.
3. Initially encouraged the resident to consider speaking with her neighbour.
At the time of the events looked at in this investigation, our spotlight report on noise had not been published. The landlord’s policy at the time was limited in its application to complaints about noise. For instance, saying that it would not investigate noise reports unless it found the noise was frequently excessive in volume and duration and occurred at unreasonable hours. It also said that where there were low level disagreements between neighbours and no breach of tenancy, it would not consider the case to be an ASB case. It appeared to take this approach in this case, telling the resident that as there had been no breach of tenancy, it could not act. It also took no evidenced action in relation to the reports of noise, apart from asking the resident to fill out diary sheets. This response, while of limited assistance to the resident, was in line with its policy at the time.
The landlord said that it had initially understood the DIY noise the resident had complained about stopped before 9pm. It considered that DIY activity could be conducted between 8am and 10pm. It therefore did not consider that the noise was conducted at an unreasonable hour. The resident also said that while she did not feel her neighbourhood manager wanted to speak to her neighbour about the noise, she had offered to do so following an agreement with the resident that she should speak with her neighbour first. This was, again, in line with the landlord’s policy at the time. However, in her complaint, the resident said that later, when she spoke with the neighbourhood manager on 3 March 2022, she had refused to speak to her neighbour for her. The landlord did not respond to that allegation in its 3 April 2022 response, which means it is difficult to conclusively determine what happened and this will be discussed below in the section on complaint handling.
The landlord also asked the resident to provide it with diary sheets so that it could assess the frequency of the noise and how it affected her. The resident said she provided diary sheets. The landlord, in its response to the resident on 3 April 2022, agreed that she had provided diary sheets and that it contact her about them. However, we have not seen any evidence that this happened. Later, in its formal stage 1 and stage 2 responses, it made no mention of having received the diary sheets. Internal records support that landlord staff did not consider they had received them. However, it would have been confusing for the resident to have been told her diary sheets had been received and then asked again to provide diary sheets without any reference to the diary sheets she had been previously told were received.
It would have been appropriate and demonstrated a proactive management of the case if the landlord had contacted the resident again to ask her to resend the diary sheets. The resident felt she had to come to the Ombudsman to progress her case. This was a service failure and was unhelpful in building a good relationship with the resident when this was already strained by the resident’s lack of trust in her neighbourhood manager, whom she had complained about.
When the resident complained again about noise on 4 August 2022 initially the landlord responded the same day, which was appropriate. It again provided diary sheets and said the resident should contact the police if she felt threatened by her neighbours. However, the following day the resident reported further ASB and said that when she had tried to speak to her neighbours about their behaviour before, she had felt intimidated. She said she had found the neighbour she spoke to, “…to be aggressive.” The landlord does not appear to have responded appropriately to this report. Its policy says that all residents who wish to report an incident of ASB would be assessed for their risk and vulnerability to ensure the appropriate level of support was provided and any safeguarding issues identified. This does not appear from the records to have happened, which is inappropriate. On the day the landlord sent the resident her stage 2 response, internally the landlord noted the further reports of ASB in August 2022 and the resident’s concerns about approaching her neighbours. It said it should check if there was any further support that could be provided. This should have happened when the reports were made and not on the day of the complaint response. Its delay in responding appropriately to her concerns and failure to conduct a risk assessment or enquire about safeguarding, was contrary to its policy and is inappropriate.
Internally, when assessing whether it had responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of noise and ASB, the landlord took the view that if there were no diary sheets, it could not evidence the behaviour complained of. However, this was not a reasonable response. The landlord had told the resident on 3 April 2022 that it had received diary sheets from her. It would have been reasonable to enquire further with the resident about when she sent the diary sheets and, given the report of aggressive and intimidating behaviour in August 2022, it would have been reasonable for it to act quickly to set up a meeting to see if it could take any other steps to improve the resident’s relations with her neighbour and take a more proactive approach to reported incidents that allegedly involved police attendance. The landlord says that when it called the resident to arrange a meeting, it received no response but we have not been given evidence of the landlord’s attempts to arrange a call. The landlord’s failure to take a more proactive approach was unreasonable.

On the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of landlord staff.

When the resident first reported her concerns about a member of the landlord’s staff, the landlord, appropriately, responded the same day. It was appropriate for it to note her comments as an expression of her dissatisfaction.
It is also clear from the landlord’s further response to the resident on 3 April 2022 that it had spoken with the member of staff concerned. The resident said that the landlord had not sought a statement from her about what had happened but in its email of 3 April 2022, it did offer to arrange a meeting with the member of staff concerned. It also said that the resident should get in touch if she had any further queries or concerns. This was a reasonable response.
It appears the resident remained unhappy with the response provided on 3 April 2022 because she came to the Ombudsman. But, on the available records, she did not communicate this to the landlord.

On the landlord’s complaint’s handling.

The landlord has accepted there were issues with its complaint’s handling. It is not clear when it provided its stage 1 response to the resident. This is because it did not describe its first response to the resident’s dissatisfaction, as a stage 1 response. This is a confusing approach as it does appear to have been a stage 1 response, given that it was a response to an acknowledged expression of dissatisfaction.
If it was a stage 1 response, it was, in any event, inappropriate. Its policy did not set out any timeframe to respond at that point, but to be in line with the Code, it should have responded to the resident in 10 working days and it took 17 working days, which is an inappropriate delay. Further, it was unclear whether it had upheld or not upheld the resident’s complaint. It spoke about the actions it had taken to address her concerns, such as speaking to the neighbourhood manager the resident had complained about but made no findings. It referred to having received diary sheets from the resident which it said she would be contacted about. Later, the landlord said it had not received any diary sheets. This unstructured approach makes it difficult for residents to determine if their complaint had been understood or not or whether it had been accepted, which is inappropriate.
If the 3 April 2022 response represented a pre-stage, that too was inappropriate. The Code says that landlords should not have pre-stages to their complaints process. As the 3 April 2022 response was not framed within a complaints process structure, it would have been confusing for the resident..
As we had not understood that the resident had already had a written response to her complaint, we asked the landlord, on 24 May 2022, to respond with a stage 1 response. Its policy did not set out any timeframe to respond at that point, but to be in line with the Code, it should have taken 10 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 24 June 2022. This was 11 working days later than it should have responded and so was inappropriate.
Further, the response took its starting point from a report the resident had made about ASB on 5 April 2022. This was not where the resident’s complaint had begun. She had first made her complaint on 10 March 2022. She had already received a response to that complaint on 3 April 2022 but this latest response, made no mention of the response sent on 3 April 2022, therefore ignoring the chronology and key concerns in her complaint journey.
The 24 June 2022 response said the resident had reported noise nuisance from her neighbour “in the form of doors slamming” on 5 April 2022. This was not an adequate summary of the resident’s complaint which had not just been about doors slamming when she complained in March 2022. The landlord said she had been advised to complete diary sheets but this ignored the fact that the previous response, on 3 April 2022, had said she had provided diary sheets and she would be contacted about them. It said that the officer had contacted her that day to arrange a call to discuss her concerns about ASB in greater detail. This made no reference to the fact that another officer had already said he had discussed her complaint with her on 24 March 2022 (in the 3 April 2022 response) and so the content of her complaint should already have been understood. While setting up another call was helpful in terms of trying to find resolutions to the resident’s complaint, the landlord failed to actually address her complaint points or, it seems, to understand where the resident was in the complaints process. This would have been frustrating for the resident.
Turning to the stage 2 response, it is difficult to say how delayed this response was because the landlord did not have a record of the resident’s alleged request to escalate. However, it accepted it was delayed and offered £175 in compensation for both that delay and the delay in responding at stage 1 of its process. This was in line with the landlord’s policy and was proportionate to the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the delays.
Also, in the stage 2 response, the landlord noted the resident’s original report about ASB had been on 10 March 2022. However, while it referred to the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint on 3 April 2022, and so would have been aware of its content, it failed to acknowledge that the landlord had said, on that occasion, that it had received diary sheets from the resident. Instead, it went on to say that the resident was provided with diary sheets on 5 April 2022. It did not say whether these had been received or whether any diary sheets had been reviewed; but simply expressed their importance.
In this response, the landlord said that if it could be established that noise was being “…constantly experienced” it could consider using sound recording equipment or a mediation programme. It explained that it could not take action unless there had been a confirmed breach of tenancy. These statements were in line with the landlord’s policy at the time. However, we have made a recommendation that the landlord reflect on this approach following the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise, as referenced above.
The landlord offered a further £100 for the time and trouble taken to pursue the management of the matter and including the lack of communication when the resident emailed the landlord.
When a landlord accepts failings, as it has done in this case, we have to consider whether the redress it offers is reasonable. As set out above we consider that in terms of the delay in the complaints process, the offer of £175 was reasonable. However, we consider the £100 to address the failings in management of the case, was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s management of her complaint. For the reasons set out above, we have ordered the landlord to make further payment which would be more proportionate to the complaint handling failings described.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the reports about the conduct of a member of staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not respond in a proactive managed way to the resident’s reports about ASB, failing to undertaken a risk assessment and follow up on diary sheets it said it had received from the resident in relation to her early reports.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its officer. While we acknowledge the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, she had not expressed further dissatisfaction to the landlord before coming to the Ombudsman.
The landlord operated a pre-stage in its complaints process which was confusing for the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report and pay her compensation in the amount of £350 as follows:
1. £250 in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of noise and anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. £100 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
The above payments are separate to the £275 already paid to the resident following the landlord’s stage 2 response. The payment is to be made direct to the resident and not used to offset any monies that the resident may owe to the landlord. The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.
Within 2 weeks of this report, the landlord should write to the resident to confirm whether she is currently experiencing any ASB or noise disturbance and if so, the landlord should within a further 2 weeks provide an action plan to the resident going forward including timeframes for actions to be taken. A copy of the action plan should be sent to this Service.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report, including the correspondence and action plan referred to.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should review its handling of the resident’s ASB. In order to learn lessons going forward the landlord should consider the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on noise complaints.