From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Peabody Trust (202310699)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310699

Peabody Trust

15 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a leak from the flat above.
    2. Reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property and a nearby pub.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a flat. The landlord is a housing association and owns a share of the flat with him.
  2. Between 2020 and 2022 the resident reported several issues to the landlord. These included a recurring leak into his flat caused by blocked guttering, damage to his windows and sills from water getting in, and noise from a neighbouring property and a nearby pub.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 24 May 2023. He asked the landlord to address several issues he had already reported a few months earlier. These included ongoing noise from the neighbouring property, where he said the tenant had removed the carpets, held regular parties late at night and deliberately stamped on the floor. He also reported disturbances from the nearby pub. He said landlord staff told him he could not use the emergency repairs service to report a leak from the flat above, or the complaints process to challenge how roof repairs were handled. He also asked how he could claim compensation for damage to his belongings.
  4. On 7 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It accepted that the resident had made repeated contact about a leak in the past, but said the problem was no longer active. It also recognised the resident’s dissatisfaction with how his concerns had been handled and apologised for this. The landlord advised the resident to get back in touch if he experienced any further issues.
  5. On 17 August 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. He said the stage 1 complaint response had not addressed the concerns he raised. Although the landlord said the leak from the flat above was no longer active, his kitchen wall was wet, suggesting there was still a leak present. He also said he had told the landlord he was vulnerable due to a diagnosis of anxiety and depression, but the landlord had not taken this into account when he reported ongoing noise from the neighbouring property.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 21 November 2023. It referred to issues the resident had raised in 2020 and 2021, accepting there had been delays in unblocking the guttering and in inspecting and repairing the windows. It acknowledged the resident’s reports of noise disturbances but said it had taken appropriate steps to address his concerns at the time. It noted the resident had recently confirmed the noise disturbances from the flat above were no longer an issue and explained that carpet requirements depended on individual leases. It said it had no record of a formal complaint about the nearby pub, though it was looking at ways to reduce loitering outside flats.
  7. The landlord explained that shared owners were responsible for repairs to their flats unless the problem was structural or caused by defects. In relation to the leak from the flat above, it said that unless it was linked to communal pipework, the repair would be the responsibility of the leaseholder of that property. It told the resident he should claim for damage to belongings through his contents or building insurance in line with its compensation policy.
  8. The landlord apologised that the resident had previously been told he could not use the complaints process, confirming that it was available to all residents with a landlord-tenant relationship. It accepted that it had handled several of his past complaints poorly, noting that its stage 1 response was of poor quality and had since been addressed with the complaint handler. It offered the resident £500 compensation, made up of £200 for time, trouble and inconvenience and £300 for poor complaint handling.
  9. In February 2024, the resident asked us to investigate his complaint as he felt the landlord had not put things right. He said it had not dealt with his reports of noise disturbances at the time or explained how it would prevent them from happening again. He also said that while he had repaired the ceiling in his flat that was damaged by the leak from above, he was unsure whether his neighbour had carried out the necessary repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This investigation is limited to events from June 2022 onwards, as records show this is when the issues leading to the resident’s formal complaint began. We recognise that the resident’s overall concerns have been longstanding. However, we have seen no evidence that his earlier reports completed the landlord’s complaints process or were brought to us for review at the time. With the passage of time, evidence becomes less reliable, which makes it harder to carry out a fair and thorough investigation. Reference has been made to earlier reports for context, as the landlord’s stage 2 complaints response considered some of these matters, but they will not form part of our final determinations.

Legal policy and framework

  1. The resident’s lease agreement requires him to keep the inside of the flat in good repair. This includes walls, ceilings, and fixtures. He must repair any damage inside the flat and keep it decorated to a reasonable standard, redecorating when necessary. The lease also requires him to carpet the floor to ensure it is covered with suitable soundproofing.
  2. The landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the main structure of the building, as well as shared pipes and communal areas. It also has a duty to take action to enforce similar terms set out in residents’ leases where these may affect others.
  3. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy defines noise nuisance as noise that unreasonably and substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of a home. It says the landlord will investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequent, excessive in volume and duration, or occurs at unreasonable hours. The policy states that lifestyle clashes, such as noise from everyday living, are not considered a breach of tenancy or lease.
  4. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to log stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of logging. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of receiving the request.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the flat above

  1. The resident reported a leak from the flat above. In response, the landlord told him he could not use its emergency repair service as he was a leaseholder. This advice was correct and in line with the lease.
  2. However, the evidence shows that the resident emailed the landlord in December 2022, to say the upstairs tenant would not address the source of the problem. The landlord did not respond. We cannot be certain who was responsible for resolving the leak in this case, but there were 2 possibilities. The landlord may have had a direct obligation if the flat above was 1 of its rented homes. Alternatively, it held powers to enforce the terms of another lease, which would usually require the leaseholder to keep their flat in good repair.
  3. Reasonable steps would have included clarifying who was responsible for the upstairs flat, contacting that party if appropriate, and explaining to the resident how the matter would be taken forward. By failing to respond at all, the landlord missed an opportunity to use its role to support resolution.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said the leak was no longer active. However, given this was 8 months after the resident’s initial report, the response should have gone further to explain what steps had been taken to resolve the issue. This was particularly important because the resident’s stage 2 complaint disagreed with the landlord’s position, saying his walls were wet and that he suspected a leak was still present. He also told us that although he had patched up the ceiling in his flat, he remained unsure if his neighbour had carried out the necessary repairs.
  5. Even if the landlord did not have a direct responsibility to complete repairs, its 8-month delay and failure to address the difference between its account and the resident’s experience left him without clear information or reassurance. This would have understandably caused frustration and reinforced the resident’s sense that his concerns were being dismissed.
  6. The landlord must now provide the resident with an update in writing on what action it has taken to confirm that the leak in the flat above has been addressed. In doing so it should respect the confidentiality of the neighbour. The update should also explain how the landlord will handle future situations where another leaseholder is responsible for a repair but does not cooperate with the resident. This is to ensure the resident is clear on who to approach and what steps will be taken.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered the resident £200 compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience. This was a reasonable attempt to acknowledge delays in addressing his concerns and aligns with our Remedies Guidance, available on our website. That guidance says where a landlord’s failings cause inconvenience but no permanent impact, an award between £100 to £600 is appropriate to put things right. The landlord’s offer therefore broadly matched what we would have ordered it to pay the resident if it had not already done so.
  8. However, as set out above, the landlord did not provide the resident with sufficient clarity about the position of the flat above. This meant the main concern, whether the leak had been properly resolved, remained unclear. For this reason, we find service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the flat above. This represents a lower level of maladministration, as the failings were limited in scope and partly addressed through the landlord’s compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property and a nearby pub

  1. In June 2022, the resident told the landlord he believed the flat above had removed its carpets and that it sounded like the tenants were ‘bouncing balls and stamping’ in the early hours of the morning. The evidence shows the landlord sent the resident diary sheets and asked him to keep a log of the noise for 2 weeks so it could be reviewed by its neighbourhood manager. This was in line with its ASB policy, as the landlord needed evidence that the noise met its threshold before it could investigate further.
  2. However, the landlord had also been informed of a potential breach of a lease agreement concerning flooring. In its stage 2 complaint response, it said that depending on the terms of a lease, it would take action to enforce them. We have seen no evidence that it made any enquiries into the type of flooring in the flat above and whether this was in line with its lease. The landlord therefore failed to act in line with its stated approach and likely left the resident feeling unsupported while the noise continued.
  3. There is no evidence the resident returned the diary sheets in June 2022. Instead, he told the landlord that he was moving forward with selling his flat as he did not believe formal intervention would help and was concerned it could make matters worse. While it is understandable the resident felt this way, by not returning the completed diary sheets, the landlord was limited in the steps it could take at that stage. The evidence shows that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s feelings and reassured him that it could intervene if it had the necessary evidence to do so. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord in the circumstances.
  4. The evidence shows that in December 2022, the resident reported that the tenants in the flat above were holding regular parties and deliberately stomping around the property. We have seen no evidence the landlord responded to this report, or to further incidents he raised in April, May, and June 2023. During this time, the resident repeatedly explained that his relationship with his neighbours had broken down, that he felt intimidated, and that the situation was affecting his mental health.
  5. By the time the landlord addressed these reports in its stage 2 complaint response in November 2023, it relied on the fact that the resident had recently reported the noise had stopped. It therefore concluded that the matter had been resolved and handled appropriately. This left a period of around 11 months where the resident’s concerns went unaddressed. This was not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which states it will ‘take a victim-centred and robust approach to tackling ASB’ and ensure that ‘customers are treated in a fair and equitable manner.’ The lack of response would have likely reinforced the resident’s sense of feeling unsupported, particularly as he had already mentioned the situation was affecting his mental health.
  6. There is evidence the landlord carried out a risk and vulnerability assessment with the resident, but the copy provided to us is not dated. The assessment rated the situation as ‘low risk’ and suggested the neighbours may not have realised how easily noise transferred. While this may have been a possible explanation, the landlord could not have known this without putting the resident’s allegations to his neighbours. We have seen no evidence it did so, which meant the resident’s allegations were left untested.
  7. If the landlord considered the situation did not warrant its intervention, it should have explained this to the resident. His reports went beyond general household noise, but the landlord gave no clear reasons for treating them as low level. By not linking its position back to its ASB policy or providing evidence to support its view, the landlord did not apply its ASB policy consistently and missed the opportunity to show the resident it had assessed his reports fairly.
  8. The resident’s email to the landlord in December 2022, also raised disturbances from the local pub. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s email at the time and only addressed the issue in its stage 2 complaint response 11 months later. While the landlord’s stage 2 response indicated that it was taking steps in the background to manage disturbances from the pub as a wider issue, its failure to respond meant the resident was unaware of this. This shortcoming in communication likely left the resident feeling that his reports were not treated as important.
  9. To conclude, the landlord’s records show it has acknowledged internally that it should have supported the resident more and that it needed to inspect the flat above to establish the type of flooring. While this was a positive step in terms of reflection, it was not carried through into its stage 2 complaint response. Instead, the landlord determined that it had handled the resident’s noise nuisance reports correctly. By failing to show learning in its final complaint response, the landlord missed an opportunity to demonstrate accountability and reassure the resident that it would take steps to prevent a repeat of the issues.
  10. Given this, and the other failings already identified, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property and nearby pub.
  11. The landlord must inspect the flooring in the flat above to establish whether it complies with the terms of its lease or tenancy agreement. It must then write to the resident to confirm the outcome of the inspection and, where necessary, set out what enforcement steps it will take. In doing so, it must avoid disclosing any personal information about the neighbour but provide enough assurance to the resident that the lease requirements are being met and enforced.
  12. Based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, as referenced above, the landlord must pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in responding to his noise nuisance reports and the lack of clarity provided about how the issues relating to flooring would be resolved.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The evidence shows the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 53 working days after receiving the resident’s complaint. This significantly exceeded its complaints policy timescales. The landlord did not give a reason for the delay and the evidence shows that the resident had to contact the landlord to chase a response. This was unacceptable. When the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, it did not include an apology or any form of redress to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay.
  2. The landlord issued it stage 2 complaint response 69 working days after receiving the resident’s escalation request. This was well beyond its 20-working-day target and only after intervention by our service. While the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response accepted that its overall complaint handling had been poor, it did not acknowledge the delay itself or explain why the resident had to wait so long.
  3. However, the stage 2 response positively identified shortcomings in the quality of the landlord’s previous complaint responses and the barriers the resident had faced in accessing and escalating his complaint. This demonstrated some reflection and a recognition that service improvements were needed. The landlord also offered £300 compensation and confirmed the resident’s case had been shared with staff to support learning.
  4. As the landlord’s compensation offer broadly aligned with our Remedies Guidance and what we would have ordered the landlord to pay the resident if it had not already done so. In addition to its commitment to share learning, we are satisfied that the landlord provided reasonable redress in response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of his formal complaint.
  5. The landlord should pay the resident the £300 compensation already offered for its poor complaint handling if it has not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made based on this sum being paid to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the flat above.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property and a nearby pub.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer prior to our involvement, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident the following compensation:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of his reports of a leak from the flat above
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in its poor handling of his noise nuisance reports
  2. These amounts replace the landlord’s previous offer of £200 compensation, which can be deducted from the overall compensation if it has already been paid.
  3. The landlord must now provide the resident with an update in writing on what action it has taken to confirm that the leak in the flat above has been addressed. In doing so it should respect the confidentiality of the neighbour. The update should also explain how the landlord will handle future situations where another leaseholder is responsible for a repair but does not cooperate with the resident. This is to ensure the resident is clear on who to approach and what steps will be taken.
  4. The landlord must inspect the flooring in the flat above to establish whether it complies with the terms of its lease or tenancy agreement. It must then write to the resident to confirm the outcome of the inspection and, where necessary, set out what enforcement steps it will take. In doing so, it must avoid disclosing any personal information about the neighbour but provide enough assurance to the resident that the lease requirements are being met and enforced
  5. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £300 compensation already offered for its poor complaint handling if it has not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made based on this sum being paid to the resident.