Peabody Trust (202302435)

Background

1. The resident lives in a second floor flat. He reported anti-social behaviour to the landlord and was unhappy that the gate to the block was not secure. He said he felt that this was causing many of the issues reported to the landlord. The landlord did not deem the reports made to be anti-social behaviour and failed to take any action to address the security issue with the gate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), including a request that the landlord address the security of the gate.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB including a request that the landlord address the security of the gate.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. It was reasonable for the landlord to decide the report made by the resident on 11 December was not ASB.
7. The landlord acknowledged that ASB was being caused because of the poor security of the communal gate to the block, however it did not address this issue within a reasonable timeframe.
8. There were delays in escalating the resident’s complaint and responding to it, and the landlord failed to raise a complaint upon receiving expressions of dissatisfaction until our involvement.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

9. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 December 2022 to report an incident that took place at the block on 9 December 2022. He advised that police attended at the time and felt that this occurred because people were able to gain access to the block. The landlord started a new ASB case on 19 December 2022. There was no explanation provided by the landlord to explain the delay in raising an ASB case, however the landlord did attempt to call the resident on 20 December 2022 and 28 December 2022.
10. On 20 December 2022 the resident sent a further email to the landlord updating them that he was aware that a crime took place at the block because the entry gate required repairing. The landlord updated the ASB case on 28 December 2022 noting that this report should not have been classed as ASB. It emailed the resident that day confirming that the incident was a serious assault and was subject to an ongoing police investigation. It explained neither the victim or suspect were residents of the block, and there were no direct concerns to any residents. This was an appropriate response in line with their ASB policy.
11. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 December 2022 complaining that the landlord was ignoring the issue with the gate not providing relevant safety. He said that the gate was inadequate and did not offer acceptable security. The landlord responded on 3 January 2023 advising that it would liaise with its contractors and visit the block to inspect the gate. Whilst this was a reasonable response by the landlord, there is no evidence that a closure letter was sent to the resident. The case was noted on 18 January 2023 suggesting that this was case should be closed as there were no further actions for the landlord. This was not appropriate and demonstrates poor communication with the resident and a failure to adhere to their ASB process and policy.
12. On 4 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord complaining about a lack of response regarding the issues previously raised about the gate. He said he had witnessed people accessing the block to deal drugs and defecate on the stairs. The landlord responded to the resident explaining that it was still liaising with the team to ensure that the right lock was installed on the gate to reduce security concerns. It did not respond to the reports of ASB in line with its policy which was not appropriate. It should have raised a case at that stage and completed a risk assessment. The landlord should also have signposted the resident to the police to report criminal behaviour as this was not its responsibility, thus managing the resident’s expectations.
13. On 13 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord chasing a response to previous emails. He also reported that his neighbours had experienced further ASB with people banging on their front door at random. He also complained that the gate was not fit for purpose, and that he was alarmed that the landlord had dismissed the assault that took place. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident which was not reasonable. It should have replied to the email addressing the concerns raised and provided advice regarding the reports of ASB from his neighbour.
14. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 25 October 2023, it recognised it had failed to obtain a quote to upgrade the gate lock and updated the resident as agreed with the resident in December 2022. It agreed that it would arrange a visit to the block by 1 November 2023, take photos of the current gate and lock and determine next steps. It advised it would look at either upgrading the lock to something more robust or look at installing a new gate with a new lock. The resident was to be updated on this decision by 10 November 2023.
15. On 26 October 2023 the landlord attended the block to assess the access gates. It noted that the side gate was easily accessible for non-residents whilst the vehicle access gate was secured with a Gerda lock. It asked for advice on how it could get a quote for a more robust lock or fob system. This was appropriate of the landlord as it had agreed to complete these actions in its stage 1 response to the resident. It further updated the resident on 10 November 2023 in a conversation with him, and followed this up with an email. It explained it was in the process of receiving quotations for an upgraded entry gate system and it would keep him updated.
16. On 11 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord complaining about “dark kitchens” which were causing many of the problems at the block. He explained these were operating at a different premises belonging to a separate landlord. He asked that the landlord visit him to discuss this matter. The landlord responded on 16 November 2023 offering an appointment that afternoon. There are no notes from this meeting, or evidence it went ahead. This is not appropriate of the landlord and demonstrates poor record keeping.
17. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 22 December 2023. In its response, it explained that it was unable to provide a date for the gate replacement at that time. It advised that it was provide him regular updates. It also explained that with regard to the attacks outside the block, that the police were best placed to dela with such situations. This was an appropriate response and it asked the resident to continue to report similar matters to the police directly. It awarded the resident £200 compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the delays and time spent reporting the concerns.
18. Following the stage 2 response, the resident chased the landlord for an update around the repair or replacement of the gates. The landlord responded on 15 March 2024 confirming that the lock for the gate was to be installed on 27 March 2024. Notes suggest that this was completed on 16 April 2024 where the following works were completed:
    1. removed and disposed of the existing latch from the gate.
    2. supplied and installed a new double-sided combi-lock.
    3. welded additional sections of the metal bar to make the lock secure.

This was tested and left in working order, and photos were taken demonstrating this and was signed off by the landlord on 24 April 2024.

19. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s initial report that a crime took place, however it did complete a risk assessment. It advised the resident that this was not deemed to be ASB and therefore it was correct in closing the case. However, it acknowledged there were failings in addressing the issue with the gate that the landlord acknowledged was causing some issues that the resident had reported. Following the inspection of the gate it agreed to carry out at stage 1, it took 119 working days to complete the necessary repairs to the gate. This was not appropriate considering the landlord accepted that this issue had led to further ASB issues.
20. The landlord awarded the resident £200 compensation for its failures. In acknowledging that delays to the gate led to further ASB issues, this sum does not acknowledge the full impact that its failures had on the resident. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB as it did not act promptly on actions identified in its case. This likely caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident. We have made orders for the landlord to award the resident an additional £200 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

21. The resident sent an email to the landlord on 20 December 2022 that should have been treated as a formal complaint. This expression of dissatisfaction was not acted on by the landlord which was not appropriate. The landlord did note internally that the reference number used by the resident in its email referred to an earlier stage 2 complaint response from June 2022. It did not respond to the resident to advise that it was or was not raising a formal complaint. This was not appropriate as the complaint policy states that any complaint requests that are rejected will be explained to the requester in writing.
22. We requested that the landlord respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 10 October 2023. The landlord responded to the resident on 25 October 2023 within its timescales which was appropriate. It advised that it could not find evidence that the resident’s complaint was refused.
23. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 10 November 2023. This was 10 working days after the resident had requested a review. The landlord’s policy did not state that it should acknowledge the complaint within a timeframe, however it did state that it would respond within 20 working days of receiving the request. In its acknowledgement, it did not confirm its complaints process which was not appropriate in setting the resident’s expectations.
24. The landlord requested an extension to respond at stage 2 on 6 December 2023 which was 18 working days after the complaint was acknowledged. This was appropriate as it was in line with its complaint policy.
25. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 22 December 2023. In its response, the landlord acknowledged that a complaint should have been raised when he initially expressed his dissatisfaction in December 2022. It also recognised the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2, explaining that further clarity was being sought. It acknowledged that a holding response should have been sent at that point and apologised for its failures. It awarded £250 compensation at stage 2 for its failures in handling the resident’s complaints.
26. In summary, the landlord identified its failures in handling the resident’s complaint. The compensation awarded of £250 is in line with our remedies guidance and therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

27. The landlord should ensure that actions that are agreed with residents are completed in a timely manner.
28. The landlord must ensure that expressions of dissatisfaction are treated as a complaint, and raised within the timescales as per its policy.