Peabody Trust (202325516)

Background

1. The landlord wrote to the resident about a complaint made by the owner of the vacant property next door to her. The resident complained because she was unhappy with how it had investigated the allegations made about her. She wanted her landlord to apologise for the way it had presented the allegations.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about ASB allegations made against her.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about ASB allegations made against her.
4. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Allegations of ASB

5. The landlord did not fully investigate the neighbour’s allegations before contacting the resident. Its compensation offer was not sufficient given the circumstances of the case.

The associated complaint

6. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint within its policy timeframe. It did not provide a stage 2 response until requested to by this Service. However, the landlord’s compensation award was sufficient to put things right.

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.

7. The landlord received a complaint from the owner of the vacant property next door to the resident’s home. This made allegations of “consistent harassment and disruptive behaviour” which they said was impacting their building project. They did not give details or examples of this behaviour.
8. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will consider ASB as defined in the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 as:
   1. Conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
   2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
   3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
9. The landlord’s ASB policy says it may not consider minor disagreements between neighbours as ASB. The landlord failed to explain to the resident if it was considering the allegations under its ASB policy or not.
10. The landlord did not take reasonable or proportionate steps to investigate the allegations before sendingthe resident a warning letter in July 2023. For example, it would have been reasonable to ask the resident for her account and toaskthe owner of the nextdoor property for examples of “consistent harassment”.
11. The resident then told the landlord she was concerned by the disruption of building works and that she was worried the owner was breaching the planning application. While this was not the responsibility of the landlord to resolve, it would have been reasonable for it to signpost the resident to appropriate services who could investigate this (for example, environmental health). The landlord’s warning letter to the resident had suggested she should not contact the local authority planning department again, which was inappropriate.
12. The landlord did not record the actions it took on its case notes system. This failing impacted its complaints investigation in February 2024.
13. The landlord took steps to put things right in its stage 2 response by acknowledging its initial letter could be “seen as accusatory” and apologising for not attempting to contact the resident before sending this letter.
14. The resident said she was very distressed by the letter, and the approach has significantly damaged her trust in the landlord. It offered £100 compensation for time and trouble. Given the adverse impact on the resident and that the landlord’s failings affected the outcome (a warning letter was issued which likely wouldn’t have happened without these failing), this level of compensation was insufficient. We have ordered an additional amount in line with our remedies guidance.
15. The landlord also said it would send a personal apology from the interim housing manager. There was no evidence the personal apology was sent, and we have found maladministration because the landlord did not do what it said it would.

16. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2023 edition. Our findings are that the landlord:
    1. Has a published complaints policy that meets the Code’s response times.
    2. Did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint and responded to the resident within 11 working days of receiving her complaint. This was slightly outside of its policy timescale.
    3. Acknowledged the stage 2 complaint after 28 working days on 15 September 2023. This was not in line with the Code.
    4. Did not respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint despite multiple requests from the resident and not until this Service asked it to.
    5. Responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint 108 working days after it acknowledged the escalation. This delayed the resident in bringing her complaint to us and caused her time and trouble in having to ask on multiple occasions for a response to her complaint.
17. The landlord apologised for the stage 2 delay in its response and offered £150 compensation in line with our remedies guidance where a landlord’s failings have had an adverse impact on a resident. We have found reasonable redress on the understanding the £150 already offered is paid, if not done already.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord did not keep records of communication between itself and the resident or itself and the owner next door. It did not record how it investigated the case.

Communication

19. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and it did not respond within a reasonable timeframe on multiple occasions.