Peabody Trust (202231798)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231798

Peabody Trust

30 April 2025

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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. An assault and not being able to retrieve footage.
2. Informing the resident of the process to retrieve footage.
3. The neighbour taking the resident’s bin.
4. The neighbour’s ring doorbell and the time taken to remove it.
5. Its failure to provide reasonable adjustments.
6. The resident’s request for a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP).

Jurisdiction

The landlord’s failure to provide reasonable adjustments

The resident has dyslexia and stated the landlord would not acknowledge she had reasonable adjustments. She stated the landlord continued to send her “wordy” emails and failed to put these on coloured background. She stated it was only at a later date the landlord recorded her reasonable adjustment requirements on file.
We have reviewed the formal response and it does not appear this formed part of the resident’s complaint at the time, or that the landlord had an opportunity to investigate this complaint. Section 42.a of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in our opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member had not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The resident’s concerns about the landlord not meeting her requests for reasonable adjustments were not considered within the complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure on 26 September 2023 and which was then referred to this service. This aspect of her complaint is therefore not within our jurisdiction to consider further within this investigation.

The resident’s request for a PEEP

We determined a complaint that included consideration of the landlord’s handing of the PEEP under reference 202307894. We will therefore not reconsider this complaint. This is in accordance with section 42.l of the Scheme which says that we may not consider a complaint which in our opinion seeks to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 20 April 2010. The property is a 4 bedroom flat.
There has been ongoing reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) between the resident and her neighbour. This have been for a period of 6 years. The resident has made previous complaints to this service which have been determined. There were also further reports raised after this complaint which the landlord investigated.
On 27 December 2022 the resident states she was assaulted by her neighbour. This resulted in her visiting hospital and obtaining medical evidence for her injuries. This was reported to the police and landlord. The police sent a response team to the resident and her neighbour. As counter-allegations were made, the police were unable to do anything further. The police wrote to the landlord to inform itof the visit.
On 16 January 2023 the resident made a request for the landlord to retrieve its communal CCTV footage of the night of the incident. On that day it forwarded the request to its contractors. The contractors attended in February 2023, but were unable to retrieve any data, this was due to the system being overwritten. The landlord informed the resident of this in March 2023.
On 30 March 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord about the issues she had experienced with her neighbour and the landlord’s handling of her reports.
During March 2023 the resident had reported the neighbour had taken her bin to the landlord. It informed the resident to contact her local council to request a new bin. It further explained that once she received a new bin it would ask the neighbour not to touch it. It also informed her of its position regarding the bins in May 2023.
The landlord had also asked the neighbour to remove their camera on the main entrance by 4 June however this was not done. It further wrote to the neighbour on 26 June 2023 and issued a Tort notice and final warning.
The landlord informed the resident it was working on having the camera on the main entrance removed. It explained that it did allow residents to have doorbells on the front doors of their flat. So if the neighbour relocated her camera doorbell there, she would be allowed. The resident was unhappy with the landlord giving the neighbour permission to install this on her front door.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 10 August 2023. Some of the issues in this were not considered in this investigation and therefore we have not referenced these points below.
1. It apologised that it was unable to retrieve CCTV footage of the December incident, and upheld this portion of the complaint.
2. It stated the resident was present when the CCTV was installed and it walked through the process of how to retrieve footage at the time.
3. It had reviewed the evidence regarding the bins, but stated this did not prove the neighbour had taken the resident’s bin. It had previously informed her of how to request a new bin from the council.
4. It confirmed it was in frequent communication with her neighbour, asking her to remove the ring doorbell camera. It had sent Torts and a final notice to the neighbour on 26 June 2023. It apologised it had not yet been removed and assured her it would be. This part of the complaint was upheld.
5. The landlord offered the resident £300 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience.
On 14 August 2023 the resident asked to escalate the complaint for the following reasons:
1. CCTV incident – Contractors attended 3 months after the incident occurred. She stated that had the landlord taken her report seriously it would have seen the evidence of what took place during the incident.
2. Requesting footage – She was never made aware about how to request footage. She was not present when CCTV was installed, despite the landlord stating this.
3. Bins – She wanted the landlord to put preventative measures in place and to agree a plan of actions around bins and cleaning of the communal area. She had requested this for 4 years but nothing had been done. She further stated the bin which the neighbour took was marked with her address and was at the property before the neighbour moved in.
4. Time taken to remove doorbell – She did not understand why it took the landlord so long to remove the doorbell.
On 31 August 2023 the landlord arranged for the neighbour’s ring doorbell to be removed. It then wrote to the neighbour and asked that she did not install the camera on the front entrance again.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 September 2023 to express her concerns about the neighbour’s ring doorbell.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 26 September 2023. It discussed all the topics raised in the resident’s recent email. This found:
1. CCTV incident – This was reported on 16 January 2023. It stated it did not attend the resident’s home until the middle of March due to the Christmas break and service levels. This was agreed as a service failure and identified in its stage one response. It stated the matter was being dealt with by the police and it would not have been appropriate for the neighbourhood manager to interfere with a police investigation.
2. Requesting footage – The landlord stated there was miscommunication and it was unable to confirm the resident was present at the time the CCTV was installed. It apologised for this.
3. Bins – It explained that because it did not own the bin, it did not have jurisdiction to intervene in a dispute over the bin.
4. Time taken to remove the doorbell – It stated the Ring doorbell was removed on 31 August 2023. It explained there was a process it needed to follow to enforce a breach of tenancy. It also explained delays had been incurred by its contractors and police involvement.
5. In its stage two response the landlord also addressed further concerns raised by the resident on 10 September 2023.
6. The landlord acknowledge the resident’s latest report which was made on 20 September 2023 about the neighbour reinstalling her Ring doorbell. It stated this had been responded to and processed in line with its ASB process and policy.
7. The landlord apologised to the resident for its service failures, and awarded the resident £350. This was in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s findings and brought the complaint to our service. It is understood the resident and her neighbour are still experiencing issues.

Assessment and findings

The resident has had ongoing issues with her neighbour for 6 years. We have previously investigated complaints relating to these concerns in 2020 and 2022. Whilst we acknowledge this, the scope of this investigation will consider recent reports relative to the resident’s complaint of 2023. We will not look back into the specific details of how the landlord handled the historic issues reported prior to this complaint.

Assault and not being able to retrieve footage

We understand this complaint concerns a number of allegations of ASB by the resident and counter allegations by her neighbour. It is important for the Ombudsman to acknowledge at the outset that ASB cases involving a number of parties with allegations and counter allegations of the extent presented in this case can be difficult and intractable for a landlord to resolve. That difficulty is not the fault of any party, but it is important that our assessment of the landlord’s actions recognises this fact. The landlord’s duty is to take reasonable steps to respond to and manage reports of ASB. In doing so, the landlord has an obligation to act reasonably and fairly towards all parties.
The evidence shows that the landlord took has taken a number of steps in response to the resident’s reports of ASB over the years, including that it:
1. Wrote to the neighbour and visited them to discuss the resident’s complaints of ASB on a number of occasions.
2. Proposed mediation between the parties.
3. Liaised with the police on several occasions.
4. Visited the resident.
5. Previously asked both residents to sign a behaviour contract.
6. Advised about housing options.
7. Wrote warning letters.
The resident reported to the landlord on 28 December 2022 that she was assaulted by her neighbour. This was regarding an issue with the ownership of the bin. The resident had also reported this to the police, however they would not record this as an assault and instead recorded it as a neighbour dispute. We have seen evidence to show the resident also attended hospital to obtain medical evidence of the assault and provided this to the police.
At the time of assault the police had arranged a response team to attend the resident’s property and it spoke to both the resident and the neighbour. The neighbour had made 2 counter allegations. The police stated it would a send a report to the landlord as there was little intervention it could implement that would assist due to the ongoing conflict allegations from both parties.
The evidence shows the police had written to the landlord on 4 January 2023. This stated it should contact both residents and consider looking into rehousing one of them as it was unable to resolve the matter.
We see the resident made a report to the landlord in January 2023 about the assault.However it did not attend the resident’s home to follow up on this until March 2023. It stated this was because of the Christmas break and levels of service. It also stated that it would not have been appropriate for its neighbourhood manager to interfere with a police investigation. Whilst we understand the landlord’s position, it would have been appropriate for it to follow up with the resident sooner. Given the initial report was made in January, prompt communication would have help to reassure the resident her concerns were being taken seriously and addressed in a timely manner.
The resident expressed upset over the landlord not being able to retrieve evidence of the assault on its CCTV footage.
We have reviewed the landlord’s CCTV policy. Section 9 references the request of footage. It states all requests made to access CCTV are received by the neighbourhood management or housing officer of the estate. If they are unable to access footage, they can dispatch a contractor to gain access to the system to perform a footage retrieval.
Section 12 refers to the response deadline. It states:
1. GDPR stipulates that requests must be responded to within a month from the date the request is received.
2. The majority of the landlord’s camera systems only retain footage for 28 days, and neighbourhood management or housing officers should be mindful of this when responding to a request to access footage.
In this instance when the resident made a report on 16 January 2023, the landlord contacted its contractors and asked for this to be checked.
The evidence shows on 24 February 2023 an operative confirmed they had attended the property and checked over the CCTV system. However any footage of the incident on that day had been overwritten. The overwrite period had been shortened as spider webs had covered both camera lenses creating constant movement. It confirmed it had cleaned the camera and ran a full diagnostic of the system and everything was operating correctly. It recommended to the landlord it attend the site at regular intervals to ensure cameras were clear from debris.
We see the landlord wrote to the resident to explain this on 15 March 2023.
We understand the resident’s frustration that the CCTV cameras were not checked sooner. As we understand the data is usually only stored for a month we would expect the landlord to review its data as soon as possible. We have not seen evidence to satisfy us as to why it took this long for its contractors to review the footage.
In its formal response the landlord apologised and upheld this portion of the complaint. This was appropriate, as the length of time taken to review the footage was longer than expected. This impacted the landlord’s ability to access any evidence which may have been recorded of the alleged assault.
In recognition of its failure, the landlord considered its compensation policy and offered the resident £300 in its stage one response. This was increased to £350 in its stage two response. This figure reflected several service failures identified in the formal response. It did not specify how much was allocated to each point which was upheld. In the landlord’s formal response, it had upheld two of the resident’s complaint points. As there was no clear breakdown to show how the landlord had calculated the amount or apportioned it between the areas it had identified, we have split the figure evenly and considered if it was reasonable.
We have reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy. It states where there has been:
1. Minor disruption – It will award between £1-£250. This is where there has been a low impact and/or low effort to resoled.
2. Moderate disruption – It will award between £251- £450. This is where there has been a low impact/ high effort, or high impact but low effort to resolve.
3. Extensive disruption – It will award between £451- £650. This is where there has been a high impact and hight effort to resolve. Extended time to complete actions. And failure to communicate or follow procedure.
In its formal response two points were upheld by the landlord. Therefore we have apportioned £175 for this complaint point that was upheld. We have found that there was moderate disruption. As the amount apportioned is below what would generally be offered for moderate disruption, we have made an order for the landlord to pay an additional £100.

Informing resident of process of retrieving data

The landlord had previously stated the resident was present on the day the CCTV camera was installed and its contractor had explained the process of requesting the footage. However it was later confirmed she was not present at the time. We have reviewed the evidence and have also not seen anything to suggest she was present at the time of installation.
We see the landlord apologised for this miscommunication and later stated it was unable to confirm if she was present. We are satisfied with the landlord’s response in its formal response. It acknowledged the error, offered a sincere apology.
We would like to highlight to the landlord that it is important that all residents are clearly informed of the process to request and retrieve CCTV footage. We have not seen that it was done in this case. In future the landlord should ensure this is done with all its residents.

The neighbour taking the resident’s bin

The resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour had taken her bin. This was previously stored at the front of the property, however the neighbour moved this to the neighbour’s private back garden. The resident does not have access to this garden. She stated the neighbour had a total of three bins. The resident had provided photos to the landlord of the bin which was marked as her address and also explained this was there before the neighbour moved into the property.
On 27 December 2022 the resident informed the landlord she had a dispute with the neighbour about the bin. She explained one was hers and had her name on it, but the neighbour believes all the bins are hers.
The evidence shows on 15 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident. It advised she should contact the council about the bins, further explaining she may have to order another one and clearly label it. It further explained if she received a new bin to inform the landlord so it can put this on its record. It would also advise the neighbour not to touch it.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 March 2023 and explained it would not investigate the bin issues any further. It advised her to directly liaise with the neighbour on this, or consider reporting this to the police if she believed it had been stolen.
The landlord further wrote to the resident on 4 May 2023 to explain that it did not provide bins to residents. It explained the council would be in a better position to verify who owns the bins as they were the providers. If further explained it would not be able to instruct the neighbour to bring back the bin as the council is the owner and it was unable to prove it was stolen.
We have reviewed the landlord’s policies and it does not specify its responsibilities regarding the bins. This is also not stated in the resident’s tenancy agreement. As the bins are not the landlord’s property and it is unable to issue new bins on behalf of the council, we find it was appropriate that it informed the resident of how to obtain one. Whilst we understand the landlord explained its position to the resident in regard to the bins, we are not satisfied with its handling of her report. Considering the longstanding disputes between the resident and the neighbour it was not appropriate for the landlord to suggest in the email dated 24 March 2023 that she liaise with her neighbour. Whilst we understand the matter was distressing to the resident, we do not consider that this had a significant impact on the resident. Overall there was ino maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the bins.

The neighbour’s ring doorbell and the time taken to remove it

The resident expressed concern over the location of her neighbour’s ring doorbell camera. It was first located on the main entrance. The resident was unhappy with the length of time which it took the landlord to have this removed. This was reported to the landlord, Information Commissioner’s Office and the police.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent body set up to uphold information rights. Its website explains that if someone sets up a CCTV system so it captures only images within the boundary of their private domestic property (including the garden), then the data protection laws would not apply. However, if the system captures images of people outside the boundary of the property, for example, a shared space, then the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 will apply. In this case the individual needs to ensure their use of CCTV complies with these laws.
With regards to domestic rights, the law acknowledges that residents have a right to protect their home and that CCTV systems offer a valuable security measure. However, the government also acknowledges the rights of people who live near the property or who walk past it, therefore there are guidelines on positioning external cameras and being respectful of neighbours.
We have considered how the landlord handled the resident’s reports and if it was in line with its policies and guidelines.
Section 17 of the landlord’s CCTV procedure refers to domestic CCTV. It states:
1. It is not unlawful for residents to have doorbell cameras (even it they capture public spaces), provided they comply with legislation and the ICO guidance. The landlord is not responsible for its residents actions in this regard, nor is it able to monitor whether they are legally compliant in the use of these cameras.
2. If involved by other residents, it should try to explain to the resident that installed the camera, the issues around privacy as part of resolving any issues. It may ask the resident to remove the system however they do not have to legally and it will not pursue legal means to enforce this. Where the landlord arranges removal of non-compliant systems, charges may be recovered from the owner of the system.
With regards to the Ring camera installed on the main entrance’s front door, it was appropriate for the landlord to investigate this and consider if it breached GDPR.
We understand the resident was unhappy it took 4 months for the device to be removed. However the landlord explained it had to follow a process before instructing the removal by its contractor.
As the device was on the shared main entrance it was appropriate for the landlord to have this device removed.As stated in section 17 of its policies where it may ask the party involved to remove the device,we see the landlord had contacted the neighbour about this several times, provided warnings and sent a Torts notice.
Whilst we understand the resident was frustrated with the length of time it took to have the device removed, we see the landlord was actively working on removing it and communicated this to the resident. The evidence shows it was removed by the landlord’s contractors on 31 August 2023.
We understand in its formal response the landlord acknowledged delays occurred when trying to get its contractors to remove the device. In recognition of this it awarded the resident compensation.
We understand the impact this had on the resident, as she was continuously chasing for this to be removed. Therefore we find it was appropriate it considered compensation.
As stated previously the landlord had offered total compensation of £350. Because the landlord was actively taking steps to resolve the matter and acted in line with its guidelines we find this falls into its minor disruption category. As stated above in this report the amount generally offered for minor disruption is between £1-£250. As the amount offered is within the region we find the level of compensation to be proportionate.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about its failure to provide reasonable adjustments is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 42.l of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a PEEP form is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the assault and not being able to retrieve footage.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of how it informed the resident of the process to retrieve footage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the neighbour taking the resident’s bin.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of the complaint about the neighbours’ ring doorbell and the time taken to remove it.

Orders and recommendations

If not done so already, the landlord to pay its offer of £350 compensation as stated in its stage 2 formal response.
The landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation to reflect moderate disruption in its handling of the resident’s assault. This should be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this letter. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to us.