Peabody Trust (202330474)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330474

Peabody Trust

23 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB);
2. Request for sensor lighting.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which started on 8 December 2008. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a block of flats.
The resident has a disability, is partially sighted and has a cancer diagnosis.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 October 2023. The resident said:
1. The landlord had not responded to her communication since it provided its Stage 2 complaint response for a previous complaint.
2. The front of the property did not have any lighting. Most nights, persons unknown accessed the garden trying to access another property.
3. She had multiple health issues and lived by herself. She was also scared after being woken up by people looking through her window.
4. No one had contacted her about her reports.
The landlord told the resident on 13 November 2023 it had registered a new complaint. This was because she had raised issues that did not form part of her previous Stage 2 complaint. The ASB concerns had been forwarded for further investigation and an inspection raised following her request for lights to be installed.
The resident responded the following day, 14 November 2024, disputing she had raised a new complaint. Rather she was chasing the outcomes from her previous complaint. The resident:
1. Requested the installation of sensor lights as she was partially sighted. The resident said she experienced difficulty using the stairs from the property in the winter and there were people hiding and lurking in the garden.
2. Said despite sending at least 30 emails to the previous Stage 2 investigator she had not received a response.
On 22 November 2023, the landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response. The landlord:
1. Apologised for the inconvenience experienced by the resident.
2. Explained the complaint had been raised to address the additional issues the resident had bought to its attention.
3. Advised it would investigate any service failures related to the previous 6 months, unless there was a complaint related failure it had not responded to or resolved.
4. Raised a repair with its contractors regarding the communal lights. An inspection was booked for 22 November 2023 pm.
5. Said it could not comment on the reported ASB and it would forward the resident’s concerns to the team who would respond to the resident directly.
6. Advised the customer resolution case manager (CRCM) would be the point of contact for the repairs. Once the complaint journey had been completed, a compensation award would be considered.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 13 December 2023. The resident expressed she wanted the external light changed to a sensor light as she was frightened by the ongoing ASB. The resident also provided pictures and requested a visit with the community safety specialist (CSS). The resident said the pictures showed persons unknown climbing on the garden wall to access the flat roof. The resident concluded by saying her concerns remained unaddressed even though she had received apologies from 6 different members of staff.
The landlord provided its Stage 2 complaint response on 14 May 2024. The landlord:
1. Apologised for the difficulties the resident faced in receiving responses to her contact.
2. Confirmed the CRCM had sent the resident’s ASB concerns to its housing management team.
3. Acknowledged it did not contact the resident to request an extension at its Stage 1 complaint stage. For this it apologised and for not meeting its complaint times scales or standards.
4. Reviewed an email from the CRCM and decided the tone of the email did not meet the standards expected from its complaint leads. It apologised for any distress caused.
5. Said a trellis was installed in early April and adjusted to make sure it was effective. The frame to the wooden gate was improved with hinges and locks installed.
6. Confirmed a new sensor light was fitted. The light was adjusted following feedback from the resident.
7. Said it had spoken to the resident who advised the issues were resolved and the resident felt more secure in her home.
8. In conclusion:
  1. Recognised failures in its complaint handling and regretted any inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  2. Recognised the inadequacy of the communication received by the resident. Also, the communication from the CRCM was inappropriate. This compounded the resident’s negative impact of the landlord.
  3. Acknowledged the pace of progress did not meet the resident’s expectations contributing to the resident continued dissatisfaction with its service.
  4. Committed to rectifying its failures and had taken steps to improve the quality of its complaint responses. This was to ensure the resident’s’ concerns were heard and acted upon in a meaningful way.
9. As redress:
  1. Awarded overall compensation of £500. This was broken down as £300 for time, trouble and inconvenience and £200 for its complaint handling failures.
  2. Explained the breakdown for its compensation award for its complaint handling failures. This was for its delay in providing its Stage 1 complaint response and its failure to agree an extension with the resident. In addition, the poor quality of its response and the delay in progressing the resident’s concerns.
On 14 June 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident. Relevant to her complaint, the landlord:
1. Apologised for its delayed complaint responses and explained it had been affected by the large volume of escalations it had received.
2. Recognised the lack of response from the CSS regarding reports of ASB.
3. Apologised for the poor communication experienced by the resident. Said the CRCM no longer worked for the landlord.
4. Said it had explained in its complaint response why the resident’s concerns had been separated into different complaints.
5. Advised it was willing to review the compensation awarded. The landlord made an additional compensation award of £1,272.60. Relevant to the complaint, the breakdown showed the landlord increased the resident’s time and trouble payment from £300 to £400. The landlord also increased the amount awarded for its complaint handling failures from £200 to £300.
6. Confirmed its Stage 2 complaint response addressed the resident’s concerns, giving an overview of the key issues relevant to its investigation.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to us. The resident said the ASB remained unresolved. She still experienced persons unknown hiding in unlit spaces and banging and kicking on her neighbours door.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the investigation will consider any inconvenience or distress experienced by the resident.
The resident has said the issues have been ongoing for at least the past 3 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from October 2023 onwards. This is because this is the period considered within the landlord’s complaint response.
We determined complaint 202224108 on 24 June 2024. This investigated complaints made to the landlord by the resident on 30 January 2023 regarding reports of damp, mould and associated repairs. The investigation also looked at whether the rear access to the property was overgrown and the landlord’s complaint handling. Therefore, this investigation will not consider matters already considered by us during that investigation.

Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

It is understandable this situation is likely to have caused frustration and distress to the resident. We consider complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports it received from its residents. We will assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure and behaved reasonably, considering all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy uses the definition in the Crime and Policing Act 2014. This defines ASB 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; or
3. Conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will assess risk and respond to reports of ASB within 2 working days. It could take a tenancy management approach if it received reports of low-level repeated incidents of noise. This can include preventative action.
The resident made reports on 13 October 2023 and 13 November 2023 regarding persons unknown assessing the garden and looking into her window. The resident expressed this made her feel vulnerable as she lived alone. The report was passed to the CSS on 14 November 2023. The resident sent pictures and requested a visit from the CSS on 13 December 2023. There is no evidence the CSS acted on the reports made by the resident or made any attempt to contact her. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will acknowledge such reports within 2 working days. There is no evidence the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy and contacted the resident. This was not appropriate.
There is no evidence of any involvement by the CSS in the assessment of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will assess whether a tenant’s reports meet the threshold to be considered ASB or to be dealt with by its tenancy management team. There is no evidence of such an assessment being made. This was not reasonable as this added to the uncertainty experienced by the resident regarding the actions to be taken by the landlord.
The landlord took until 4 January 2024 before it sent an action plan to the resident. Before drawing up the action plan, there is no evidence the landlord undertook a risk assessment. When considering the response to a complaint of ASB, the statutory guidance for frontline professionals requires that agencies must consider the effect that the behaviour in question is having on the lives of those subject to it. The harm, or the potential for harm to be caused to the victim, is an important consideration for the landlord in determining its approach, as the more vulnerable can be less resilient to anti-social behaviour. The guidance promotes the use of risk assessments in cases of ASB as, whilst they cannot provide a definitive assessment of someone’s needs, they can assist in determining an appropriate response. There is no evidence the landlord did so despite the resident raising the impact of the ASB to her. Had it carried out a risk assessment, the score of the level of risk would have assisted in its approach to the resident’s concerns.
An action plan should be discussed and agreed with the resident. The action plan should have clear timescales setting out who is responsible for any identified actions and any period of monitoring that had been agreed. The landlord has failed to evidence this occurred before the action plan was sent to the resident. The plan would have set out how frequently the resident could expect to receive updates about the actions the landlord was taking. Had it included the resident when drawing up the action plan, this would have gone some way to minimise some of the uncertainty experienced and set out how it intended to resolve the concerns she had raised and helped manage her expectations.
The landlord has not evidenced it undertook any monitoring of the action plan it sent to the resident. There is also no evidence it undertook regular reviews of the reports made by the resident. It is noted the resident was not asked to provide diary sheets or use the Noise app to assist the landlord to assess the frequency of the reports made by the resident. There appeared to be no attempt to keep the resident informed about the progress of the case. Had it done so, this would have reduced the stress and anxiety experienced by the resident and provided confidence that the landlord had the matter under control.
The landlord’s records do not make clear when it decided a visit by a surveyor was required or when the surveyor’s visit occurred to assess the access to the flat roof. The landlord should keep clear records as without this it is difficult to show it has correctly responded to reports it has received and taken appropriate actions. Following the surveyor visit on 4 March 2024, a repair order was raised to renew the wooden gate from the car park. The order also included a trellis to be installed to prevent unauthorised access. The works were completed on 17 April 2024 with additional locks fitted. The landlord also installed a trellis to the wall to stop people climbing the wall. The time taken by the landlord to take action to resolve the reported ASB was too long. The resident experienced an unacceptable delay of around 5 months and this was not reasonable.
Landlords are expected to engage with agencies to resolve resident’s reports of ASB. The resident asserted the CSS did not engage with the police to resolve the reports she had made. In January 2024, the landlord informed the resident it was meeting with the police. Given there is no evidence of the content of the meeting, what was discussed or what was decided. It is not possible to say the landlord took into account all the information it received regarding the resident’s reports. This is not reasonable.
The landlord in its complaint review apologised to the resident and offered overall compensation of £300 for the time and trouble experienced for its service failures. The landlord did not provide a breakdown of its assessment of the compensation which means it is not possible to identify the amount payable for its failings in addressing her reports of ASB. The failings by the landlord are: its failure to assess whether the resident’s reports fell within its definition of ASB, to carry out a risk assessment, poor communication and monitoring of the action plan it provided.
After the complaint process ended, the landlord carried out a further review of its handling of the complaint. Its communication does not explain the factors that prompted it to do so, however, it is known the landlord was handling other complaints made by the resident. The review resulted in the landlord increasing the time and trouble element to £400. Our Remedies Guidance says when there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident, payments between £100 to £600 are appropriate. Again, the landlord did not provide reasons for the increase in its compensation award and how much of the increase related to its failings in the handling of the ASB. It is noted the resident’s preferred outcome was for the landlord to resolve the reported ASB. Given the landlord’s lack of clarity regarding its compensation assessment, we have assumed at least 50% ( £200) of the compensation was for this. For the failing identified above, this was not considered reasonable or proportionate. An order has been made about this below.
Overall, the landlord failed to assess whether the resident’s reports of ASB met the threshold to be considered ASB as outlined in its policy. It did not respond to the resident’s reports within a reasonable time and the resident experienced poor communication as it failed to keep her informed and updated. The communication failures also meant the resident remained unaware of the action it was taking regarding her reports of ASB and whether it would take further action. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, its failings to carry out a risk assessment and to monitor the action plan caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Had the landlord responded and been more responsive to the resident’s concerns, its actions might have resulted in an improvement in the issues complained about. For the reasons given, a finding of maladministration has been made for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. In addition an order has been made for additional compensation and for the landlord to arrange a mutually convenient appointment regarding the resident’s reports of ASB.

Request for sensor lighting

The resident requested additional lighting at the front of the property in October 2023. The resident told us the property did not have communal lighting at the front of the building and wanted the landlord to install it. This is likely to be considered an improvement. The landlord missed an opportunity to let the resident know how it would consider her request as this is likely to include carrying out a consultation process with affected neighbours. It is noted the request for additional security would have gone some way to reassure the resident and acted as a possible deterrent to any unwelcome visitors.
The landlord raised an inspection on 22 November 2023 to investigate the resident’s concerns with the lighting. The resident requested similar lights to that had by her neighbours which could be controlled inside the property. The resident explained she requested the additional lighting to help her access the stairs when it was dark. The resident also expressed concern that persons unknown could be lurking in the garden and the current situation meant such people were obscured.
The landlord agreed on 4 January 2024 to decide to check with the resident’s neighbours about installing the sensor lighting. However, there is no evidence it took steps to obtain the views of the resident’s neighbours about improving the lighting to the property. This is not reasonable as without this information, the landlord did not have the full views of the residents living in the building about the lighting to the block. This contributed to the delay experienced by the resident in getting her concerns addressed.
The resident chased the landlord on 3 separate occasions: 18 January 2024, 1 February 2024, 18 March 2024 before the light to her property was changed on 28 March 2024. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the new light. The resident said the new lighting did not provide greater illumination when she was using the stairs. It was reasonable for the landlord’s contractor to discuss with the resident her concerns and types of light switches available. At the end of the discussion, the resident’s preferred light switch was installed.
As addressed before, the landlord in its email dated 14 June 2024 increased the overall compensation for time and trouble experienced by the resident to £400. As the landlord has not identified how much of the compensation award relates to its failings in the installation of the light, we have assumed 50% (200) relates to the time, trouble inconvenience experienced by the resident. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities this was not sufficient for the delay experienced by the resident and the time taken to chase the landlord regarding her request for additional lighting.
Overall, the landlord took too long to inspect and assess the additional lighting requested by the resident. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and that it was aware of her concerns about the ASB in the garden, it took too long to assess her request for additional lighting. The landlord did not keep to its repair timescales, which says non- urgent repairs will be completed within 28 days. The landlord took around 5 months which represented an unacceptable delay to the resident. For those reasons, a finding of maladministration has been made and to put things right an order to pay an additional award of compensation.

landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint procedure says it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at Stage 1 and within 20 working days at Stage 2.
The landlord registered a complaint from the resident on 13 October 2023. The resident disputed making a new complaint and said she was making contact as she was experiencing difficulty making contact with the previous Stage 2 investigator. The landlord did not explain why the previous Stage 2 investigator had not responded to the resident nor did it take any action to expedite this for the resident. This is not reasonable as the complaint process is to increase trust and improve the landlord and tenant relationship. We expect landlord’s to honour commitments made in its formal complaint responses and this includes responding to communication from residents. Had it done so, this would have reassured the residents complaints were taking seriously.
It was reasonable for the landlord to explain in its complaint responses why it had registered a new complaint. The landlord explained the resident had raised additional issues that had not been considered during its previous complaint investigation. Therefore, it had raised a new complaint to consider those issues. This was reasonable.
The landlord in its Stage 1 complaint response did not give the landlord’s position on the reported ASB. Instead it said, the resident’s reports had been forwarded to its housing management team. This was not reasonable as there is no evidence it sought to obtain information from the housing management team for its Stage 1 complaint response. Had it done so, the resident would have known the action taken to progress her ASB reports.
It was not reasonable the landlord in its Stage 1 investigation did not consider whether redress was payable for the service failures it had identified if any. The landlord’s decision to consider this once repairs were completed meant it ignored any impact to the resident from the reported ASB and implied this may not cause inconvenience or distress to the resident. This delayed the landlord putting things right for the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint on 13 December 2023 and this was acknowledged on 21 December 2023. The landlord’s complaint procedure and our Complaint Handling Code (2022) tells landlord’s that complaints should be resolved at the earliest opportunity. The landlord did not act in line with the guidance as it took until 1 May 2024 before it contacted the resident to request an extension before issuing its final complaint response. This was not reasonable as the resident waited nearly 5 months and had not received its final position on the complaint.
The landlord provided its Stage 2 complaint response on 14 May 2024. The resident experienced an unacceptable delay in receiving the landlord’s complaint response. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord reviewed the communication between the resident and the CRCM. It accepted the communication had not met its customer service standards. We recognise sometimes landlords operate in challenging circumstances and have to manage difficult conservations with residents. It was reasonable the landlord recognised the communication between the CRCM did not meet its professional standards and apologised for this.
The landlord in its complaint review acknowledged its complaint handling failings. For this it apologised and made a compensation award of £200. The landlord identified its delay in providing its Stage 1 complaint response and escalating the resident’s concerns to its final stage. It also recognised the quality of the Stage 1 complaint response did not meet its standards. The compensation award was sufficient for the failings it had identified as it fell within payments of £100 to £600 outlined within our Remedies Guidance for failings which adversely affect residents.
However, the landlord in its communication of 14 June 2024 increased the compensation award for its complaint handling failings to £300. The landlord did not identify any further failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint to warrant the increase in the compensation award. As the landlord has agreed to make an increased compensation offer well after the complaint process has ended, we expect the landlord to keep to its promise. The landlord should make the increased compensation award to the resident.
The landlord said it had learnt from the complaint and was committed to putting things right for its residents. It was working to improve the quality of its complaint responses so residents received a resident focused complaint response. This would reduce residents feeling their concerns have not been heard or acted on.
Our Dispute Resolution Principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from mistakes. The landlord has accepted its service provision to the resident should have been better. It has identified its shortcomings, the impact on the resident and acknowledged that its services required improvement. Given all the circumstances of the case, including the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions, its sincere apology, compensation awards and learning from the complaint warrant a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for sensor lighting.
In accordance with Paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily regarding its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident apologising for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £650 compensation. This includes the £300 ordered in its Stage 2 complaint response and the additional £100 it agreed to pay in its email dated 14 June 2024. This is broken down as an additional:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s request for sensor lighting.
3. If the landlord has already made the payment of £400 to the resident, it can deduct this from the £650 ordered above.
4. If it has not already done so, the landlord should arrange a mutually convenient appointment with the resident regarding her reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy. If necessary open a new ASB case and share the outcome of that visit in writing with the resident. A copy to be provided to us.
The landlord is confirm its compliance with the above in line with the given timescales.

Recommendation

If it has not already done so, within 3 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident the £300 it agreed in its email of 14 June 2024, in relation to its acknowledged complaint handling failings. The above finding that the landlord has offered reasonable redress is dependent on the payment being made to the resident.
The landlord should reply to this Service with 4 weeks to confirm its intentions in regard to the recommendations.