Peabody Trust (202216787)

Background

1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord in a 1 bed ground floor flat, which started in February 2010.
2. The resident’s neighbour, living in the basement flat directly below her, has made allegations of anti-social behaviour (ASB) against her since 2013, generally in relation to noise transference between the properties. The landlord arranged mediation between the resident and the neighbour, in April 2021.

What the complaint is about

3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of:
   1. ASB.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB.

5. The landlord’s handling of this issue was not appropriate. The landlord failed to provide a service to the resident in line with its policies and procedures. It did not acknowledge these failures or demonstrate any learning.
6. We therefore order the landlord to apologise and pay compensation for the impact these failures had on the resident.  

The landlord’s handling of the residents associated complaint.

7. The landlord’s complaint handling could have been improved. The overall compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate for the failures identified in this investigation, and in line with our guidelines. However, we cannot make a finding that it provided reasonable redress. This is because the landlord failed to explain why it had not accepted the resident’s submission on 26 July 2021 as a complaint. This was a failure for which the landlord did not demonstrate learning.
8. We, therefore, order the landlord to apologise for this. We do not order the landlord to pay any more compensation.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

9. The resident has described how the issue has impacted her health and mental well being. We are sorry to hear about this and acknowledge the difficulties she has faced.
10. The courts are the most effective place to deal with claims about personal injury. As we are an informal alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The resident may wish to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered the impact of any failings by the landlord, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
11. It is important to note that it is not our role to investigate the reported ASB incident, to apportion blame or to assess the credibility of the report made by the resident. Rather, it is to assess the landlord’s response to the report and to the resident’s subsequent complaint with reference to its own policies, as well as our own assessment of what is fair, given all the circumstances of the case.

What we did investigate

12. When the resident raised the ASB issue on 26 July 2021 the landlord had an ASB policy. In this it said it would broadly categorise the ASB into type, such as personal, environmental or nuisance and it used the Crime and Policing Act 2014’s definition to assess what was ASB.
13. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not result in a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
14. The policy said it would support the victims of ASB by prevention, intervention, and enforcement and would work in partnership with other agencies to achieve an outcome-focused approach. Its policy committed to contacting and risk assessing all victims of personal ASB within one working day and offering a face-to-face meeting within five working days.
15. When the resident contacted the landlord on 26 July 2021, she informed it that her neighbour had come to her address, shouted and swore at her and was generally aggressive in nature. She told the landlord that she had doorbell footage of the incident.
16. As the incident satisfied the landlord’s definition of ASB, the landlord ought to have opened an ASB case and contacted the resident within one working day to conduct a risk assessment.
17. As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include a record of the ASB reported on 26 July 2021.
18. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it followed its own policy to take action in relation to the resident’s report or that it contacted the resident to discuss the incident until 7 June 2022, 219 working days after her report. By failing to open an investigation, the landlord missed an opportunity to intervene at an early stage.
19. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord did not acknowledge any failures in providing a service in line with its ASB policy and procedures. Its response lacked any understanding of the resident’s concern and failed to address how it had handled her 26 July 2021 report of ASB. The response focused on the most recent contact with the community safety specialist, which likely made the resident feel like her concerns were not understood.
20. In her escalation request the resident explicitly asked the landlord to explain what steps, if any, it had taken to address her concerns in relation to her reported incident.
21. The landlord used its stage 2 response to tell the resident that, in response to her report, it had contacted the police, council and neighbour. The landlord has not provided evidence that these actions took place.
22. Landlords should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of ASB reports, responses, interventions, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
23. Overall, we find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord failed to provide a service in line with its policies and procedures, and this left the resident feeling like her report had not been taken seriously.
24. The landlord failed to assess the risk posed to the resident or consider if further interventions or support were needed. The landlord’s communication was not appropriate with an excessive period of no contact which caused additional time and trouble to the resident to seek our assistance and that of external legal and housing support, the police and an MP.
25. Even after the resident raised a complaint there is no evidence that the landlord took proportionate action, and it should have handled the resident’s concerns with more empathy and provided support earlier than it did.
26. It would not be fair to hold landlords responsible for the actions of its tenants, unless it authorised the behaviour complained of. Our role is to look at the failures and consider the impact on the resident of those. Our compensation awards are to recognise that, due to a failure, the resident is likely to have experienced distress, upset, inconvenience and disappointment.
27. Therefore, to recognise the impact of the failures, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £800 compensation. This is in line with our guidance on remedies where there is likely to have been some significant emotional impact.

28. The landlord’s complaint policy, effective from 11 January 2021 defined a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, our employees or those acting on our behalf.”
29. It further stated that reports of ASB would “be dealt with by the relevant teams outside of this policy. Customers may make a complaint in line with this policy about the way these things have been handled”.
30. As the resident was making the landlord aware of an incident of ASB on 26 July 2021, and not making an expression of dissatisfaction of the landlord’s service, it was appropriate, and in line with its complaints policy, that the landlord did not open a complaint investigation at that time and that it passed the resident’s concerns to the appropriate NEM.
31. However, the landlord’s explanation that it had “allocated this to your neighbourhood experience manager to investigate” did not go far enough to explain why it would not be conducting a complaint investigation or why it had been passed to the NEM. This was further confused by the NEM’s email in which they said, “I also noticed that you’ve logged the same issue with our complaints team; this will be addressed together”. This understandable confusion was evidenced in the resident’s escalation request, as she questioned why the landlord was responding to her complaint of 15 December 2021 and not 26 July 2021.
32. By not explaining this in its stage 2 response, the landlord missed another opportunity to help the resident understand why its complaint’s team had not conducted an investigation until her submission on 15 December 2021.  
33. It was appropriate that the landlord accepted the resident’s complaint on 15 December 2021 as that report clearly expressed the resident’s dissatisfaction in how the landlord had handled her report of 26 July 2021.
34. The landlord’s complaints policy stated it would acknowledge the resident’s complaint within 2 working days. The resident’s complaint of 15 December 2021 was acknowledged within 11 working days on 4 January 2022. This was a failure for which the landlord apologised in its acknowledgment.
35. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 June 2022, 119 days after the resident submitted her complaint. Its complaints policy, at the time, said it aimed to “resolve to all complaints within 10 working days”.
36. The resident requested that her complaint was escalated on 26 June 2022. The landlord’s complaint policy said it would inform residents of its decision, in writing, within 10 working days of the appeal date. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 123 working days later, on 16 December 2022.
37. At both stages of the landlord’s complaints process the landlord’s responses were issued much later than its published timescales. And it took the resident significant effort to obtain the responses. The resident took the time to chase the landlord and sought the assistance of her MP and our service. The landlord has not provided any evidence that there were any exceptional circumstances which prevented it from adhering to its published timescales.
38. The landlord used its complaint responses to apologise, acknowledge its significant complaint handling failures, and explain the changes it had made to prevent similar issues reoccurring. It also offered compensation of £500, which was proportionate and in line with our guidance in which there has been a failure or failings by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Learning

39. The landlord identified its own learning in respect of its complaint handling. It explained that since its merger with another landlord it had made improvements in the complaint process. It said this included a change in management, re-training of staff, recruitment of new complaint handlers and a new contact to system to improve monitoring.
40. Some time after this complaint, the Ombudsman conducted a special investigation into the landlord and issued a report in March 2023. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings affecting residents, including in its record keeping, complaint handling and communication. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including reviewing its complaint handling processes.
41. The landlord responded to us, describing how it had responded to the recommendations from the special investigation report and had made changes to its service. As the events of this complaint took place before and during the time of our special investigation, no orders or recommendations have been made in this case for the landlord to review its complaint handling in addition to those made in the special investigation report.