Peabody Trust (202333345)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333345

Peabody Trust

24 October 2024

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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) issues at the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat within a house converted in or around the 1970’s. A maisonette is situated above the resident’s property. The landlord has no record of any health vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident explained that she has held a tenancy since 1999. She shares the rear garden with the occupants of the maisonette above her property. A fence separates each half of the garden. The resident reports ongoing incidents of ASB over a number of years, affecting her enjoyment of the property and garden.
On the 9 and 12 February 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. She addressed her complaint to the landlord’s Chief Executive (CEO). She said the behaviour of her neighbours was affecting her physical and mental health. At this time, alleged incidents included loud music, rubbish thrown into her garden, dog fouling, and leaving items in the communal hallway.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 14 February 2023 and said it would provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 14 March 2023. It said it had reviewed its handling of the resident’s case and considered recent sound recording reports. It concluded that the recordings collected did not evidence ASB but general living noise. It suggested this could be due to poor sound insulation, resulting in noise transference between properties. It did not consider the noise recorded as being intentional or malicious.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP) on 14 March 2023. She said:
1. The landlord had not referred to the statutory noise warning issued by the council on 10 March 2023.
2. She considered the incident’s serious ASB and warranted a stronger response from the landlord.
3. She considered the dog fouling and communal obstructions health hazards.
4. Sound recording had only been in use during the week. As she had been away over the weekend, she was unable to record “enough serious noise nuisance.”
5. The landlord was ignoring the affects on her physical and mental health.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 24 March 2023. It provided her with its stage 2 final response on 14 April 2023. In which, it apologised for its delay to record her stage 2 complaint. It offered £25 compensation to recognise this service failure. Its response said it did not under estimate the affects of ASB and explained there were challenges with such investigations. It needed to ensure the action it took was reasonable and proportionate and required sufficient evidence to pursue legal routes. It was satisfied it had acted on the resident’s reports and issued appropriate warnings. It did not identify any mismanagement in the handling of her case.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. In July 2023 she said incidents of noise, rubbish, and dog fouling continued. Between June 2023 to January 2024 she said matters escalated and she had experienced threatening behaviour from the occupants of the property above, which resulted in her calling the police.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We note the resident’s correspondence said the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB and her complaint affected her physical and mental health. We do not doubt the residents comments.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. Therefore we are unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. A court or insurer must make an assessment of liability in such matters. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on her health.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
We also note that the resident’s correspondence to us and the landlord continued beyond its stage 2 response. This included new reports of dog fouling, noise, items dropped in her garden, and verbal threats which she reported to the police in June 2023. While we recognise the distress these incidents would cause, a key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s original complaint through its ICP. This is to ensure it took reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s complaint within its 2 stage process.
Therefore, the findings made in this investigation will be based on whether the formal complaint responses provided reasonable redress, up to its stage 2 complaint response on 14 April 2023. The resident’s additional reports will not form part of this particular investigation. It is appropriate that the resident has informed us that she has raised new complaints regarding these incidents with the landlord.

Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) issues at the property

Paragraph 3.1 of the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy uses the definition of ASB as per Section 2 of the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014. That being:
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.
Paragraph 3.2 of the same policy says noise nuisance, as defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, must meet one of the following criteria:
1. Unreasonably and substantially interfere with use or enjoyment of a home or other or premises.
2. Injure health or be likely to injure health.
It is unclear from the evidence supplied precisely when the resident first made her ASB report to the landlord. We are aware that she has described ongoing incidents from early 2022. In which, the landlord provided a stage 2 final response on 7 October 2022. We investigated and determined this period as a separate complaint on 22 December 2023. The evidence indicates the resident reported matters as ongoing.
Between 5 December 2022 to 19 February 2023 the landlord provided the resident with ASB incident diary sheets. This was reasonable and a necessary step for the landlord to compile evidence. During this time the resident reported:
1. Rubbish, including hair, a used condom, used wet wipes, and clothing, thrown into her garden.
2. Loud music and loud thumping from the property above.
3. A filled dog poo bag hung on her garden fence.
4. A child’s scooter, pushchair, and baggage left in the communal hallway.
5. The communal front door left open.
6. The resident’s doorbell rung by delivery drivers and take-away deliveries for her neighbours.
We acknowledge that any ASB situation can be distressing for a resident. At this point, it may help to explain our role. In the circumstances of the case we are unable to decide whether noise and ASB is taking place as alleged. Our role is to consider the evidence available, consider whether the landlord kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and determine whether it acted reasonably in the circumstances of the case.
Between 9 February 2023 to 15 February 2023 the resident’s diary sheet says the landlord had provided her with sound recording equipment. This was a reasonable step and demonstrated it took action to assess the resident’s noise reports.
Also, we note the landlord’s internal communication about this matter. In which, it indicated a 4-week wait on the recording equipment’s availability. However, it said it had requested it for the resident as “urgent.” This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to support the resident with her reported concerns. This action was reasonable.
We note that the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord only provided this equipment for 1 week. She also advised that she had been away over the weekend, “when noise is usually worse,” so had been unable to make any recordings during those days. While we are unable to determine why the landlord could only provide the equipment for 1 week, it had no control over the resident’s absence from the property.
Given there is evidence which indicates the landlord prioritised her case for the equipment, it therefore demonstrated acting on her concerns. It steps to provide a means to record evidence was therefore reasonable.
There is further evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident on 10 February 2023, following her complaint to the CEO. In which, it reassured the resident it was taking her concerns seriously. It said her neighbour had proposed mediation. The landlord said it would arrange this through an independent third party. It asked the resident to confirm her willingness to participate. We have been unable to identify any evidence the resident agreed to this proposal.
From our conversation with the resident on 8 October 2024, she confirmed that mediation never took place. She said there had been no follow up from the landlord. Furthermore, she said her neighbour changed their mind and as matters had escalated, she also no longer felt comfortable participating.
Paragraph 4.11 of the landlord’s ASB policy says it will use a range of preventative measures, such as signposting to mediation services to tackle ASB. Therefore, its mediation offer was appropriate and demonstrated it acted in line with its ASB policy. Given that the landlord had offered to arrange mediation, it demonstrated it had discussed matters with the resident’s neighbour. It was willing to assist the resident and waited on her intent to participate. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
That said, we have seen no evidence the landlord followed up its offer. Had it done so, it may have been able to discuss how the resident felt and whether there were any concerns or barriers which it could help to overcome. That it did not, did not demonstrate effective monitoring of the resident’s circumstances. We consider this a record keeping failure.
On 13 March 2023 the landlord provided a review of the sound recordings to the resident. It explained that there were events which were primarily music at a “relatively low” level. It said that there were instances of very heavy fast and loud footfall at 60dBA. It said the equipment identified that the noise she had experienced was the result of noise transfer between properties. It suggested poor sound insulation and not intentional or malicious actions attributed to this. It suggested the following action plan:
1. It proposed conducting a sound test. The sound test would consist of a home visit by 2 officers, 1 person in each property. The officers would both walk around the flats to try to replicate the normal living environment of someone living in the flat. It said it would use the findings to try to understand the severity of the noise.
2. It provided instructions to download a noise recording app so the resident could continue to record instances of excessive noise.
3. It recognised the resident had reported contacting the local authorities Environmental Health (EH) noise nuisance team in January 2023. It advised it had asked EH to provide information of its visits to support its own investigations.
4. It encouraged the resident to continue reporting statutory noise to the local authority and updating it when she did.
5. It suggested contacting the local authority for a noise transference report. It said it would be able to use the EH teams findings to consider whether the property warranted additional sound installation works.
Part E of the Building Regulations came into force in the UK in 2003. It prescribes acoustic insulation levels for new and converted residential buildings and sets decibel levels (dBA) for airborne and impact noise. These standards do not apply to any home built or converted before 2003. There is case law that landlords are under no obligation to soundproof homes to a standard above the one that was in force at the time of its construction.
The resident explained that work to convert the property in to 2 flats took place in or around the 1970’s. Therefore, the landlord was not responsible for soundproofing the property above the standards applicable at the time of its building. Its action plan and suggestions at this stage were reasonable and demonstrated it had considered steps to support its investigation into the resident’s noise concerns.
There is evidence the resident chase the landlord on 8 March 2023 regarding further incidents of dog fouling in her garden. She expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of a response or action from the landlord since her emails to the CEO on 9 and 12 February 2023.
Paragraph 4.7 of the landlord’s ASB policy says it will respond to reports of ASB within 2-working days. Its failure previously to meet this expectation caused the resident time and trouble chasing the landlord for an update. Given the nature of what she was experiencing, this would have understandably caused her distress.
At this stage the landlord demonstrated acting on the resident’s concerns. It spoke with the resident’s neighbour and informed the resident on 10 March 2023 that the neighbour had agreed to find and collect the faeces. This demonstrated the landlord taking steps to support the resident. That said, given the resident reported no change to the situation 2 days later, it is unclear what action the landlord took, if any, to address this matter with the neighbour again. This caused the resident further time and trouble as she felt it necessary to ask to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP.
On the 14 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said the EH team had confirmed that it had issued a warning to the occupants above the resident due to noise on 20 January 2023 and 9 March 2023. The landlord said it discussed these reports with the resident’s neighbour and warned them of the “potential consequences.” The landlord suggested it should go ahead with a sound test and asked the resident to confirm her availability. While correspondence continued between the resident and landlord, we have been unable to identify that the resident confirmed her availability at this stage.
There is evidence the landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour about the resident’s concerns. We note her dissatisfaction on 28 March 2023 that the landlord did not inform her of the details of the discussion. However, it was appropriate that it did not disclose the details of the conversations with the neighbour or actions taken, as this would breach data protection. While we acknowledge the frustration this may cause, the landlord’s actions were appropriate.
We note that the resident says her neighbour’s behaviour got worse after receiving the landlord’s warning. The resident considered the changed behaviour harassment and intimidating. While we acknowledge the distress this alleged situation would cause, the landlord’s advice on 29 March 2023 to report any incidents of this nature to the police was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord provided a summary of a risk assessment it completed. This was an appropriate step as this process can measure and assess harm. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider this and ensure the resident was aware of the need to report alleged incidents to the police. We note there is evidence beyond the landlord’s stage 2 response in which it made a police disclosure request. The police report advised it had taken no further action.
The landlord’s risk assessment recorded the resident disclosed mental health vulnerabilities. It is therefore unclear why it did not follow this up. It did not evidence any markers or flags on its customer records, nor within its summary of the resident’s circumstances in its evidence to us. This demonstrates a record keeping failure.
The landlord demonstrated completing an action plan regarding the resident’s reports of noise. In which, it was unable to identify malicious incidents. However, it explained the need to collate evidence and made several suggestions of steps it could take. There was no evidence the resident responded to the landlord’s offer to confirm her availability for a sound test visit, nor that she contacted the EH team for a noise transference report. Therefore, we find the landlord’s actions, at this stage, reasonable in the circumstances.
That said, there are gaps in the landlord’s response and action to the resident’s reports of repeated dog fouling. While there is evidence it called the neighbour, this action only took place after the resident chased it for updates. We note that a member of the landlord’s staff had been unwell and away from work. This affected its ability to respond within its 2-day response timescale.
However, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have provision in place to cover such incidents. While there is evidence it did allocate work to an alternative member of staff, there had already been delays in its responses. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as she felt her concerns had been unanswered.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise Complaints published in October 2022 explains that where noise reports do not meet the statutory threshold, then landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management policy. This should be distinct from its ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbour relationships. Our recommendations include the use of mediation, at the earliest opportunity, in an attempt to establish a mutual understanding of each other’s lifestyles.
As there is evidence the landlord offered this as an option, it gave opportunity at this stage, for all parties to discuss and consider the conduct of each household. While we acknowledge this did not take place, there is evidence the landlord offered it and waited on the resident’s acceptance. While we recognise the resident says incidents continued which affected her wellbeing, the landlord must gather evidence and take reasonable and proportionate action before attempting to progress matters legally. From our findings, the landlord demonstrated this at this particular time.
Based on our findings we find service failure with the landlord’s response to this complaint point. While we recognise the resident has raised additional reports and complaints to the landlord beyond its stage 2 response of 14 April 2023, our role is to assess its action at the time of this specific complaint. In doing so, while we found there had been delays in the landlord’s response to reports of dog fouling, it demonstrated taking appropriate steps, at this stage, to assist with her reports of noise nuisance.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It states that a resident can expect a complaint acknowledgement within 5 working days. It will provide a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. If it requires more time, this should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. It will agree any extension with the resident in advance. This is appropriate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord recorded the residents stage 1 complaint on 14 February 2023 and acknowledged it within 4 working days. This acknowledgement timeframe was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy. That said, we note the evidence of the resident’s emails to the landlord’s CEO on 9 and 12 February 2023. In which, she clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and handling to her reports of ASB.
Paragraph 3.1 of the landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its employees or those acting on its behalf. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not record her dissatisfaction as a complaint following her first email on 9 February 2023. That it did not, caused the resident additional time and trouble as she repeated her dissatisfaction.
The landlord’s acknowledgement to the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its ICP took 8 working days. This was 3 working days beyond that expected. While it failed to meet the expected timescales, the detriment of this failure would have been low. There is evidence of earlier correspondence between both parties before its acknowledgement. This demonstrated the landlord remained in contact with the resident and reassured her it had received her report.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 April 2023, 2 working days beyond the expected 20 working day response timeframe. While we note the landlord’s failure to meet its published response timeframe, the detriment caused to the resident would have been low.
That said, paragraph 5.6 of the Code says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The landlord did take time to empathise with the resident’s situation. It also explained in depth the challenges of enforcement action without evidence. However, it failed to address the resident’s reports of repeated dog fouling and rubbish thrown in to her garden. The resident’s escalation request raised concerns that the landlord had not addressed these points in its stage 1 response. It is therefore unclear why its stage 2 final response also failed to provide her with a specific response or an action plan. That it did not, failed to demonstrate it met the expectations of the Code and caused her time and trouble having to ask to escalate her complaint.
The landlord does not dispute that it did not meet its complaint handling response timescales. In its stage 2 response it apologised for the delays and offered £25 compensation. While this demonstrated the landlord taking steps to put things right, its offer of redress was not proportionate for the failings identified. The landlord’s complaint handling failures caused her time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience while trying to seek action to each of her concerns. The compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused.
We find service failure with the how the landlord handled this specific complaint. We order it to pay the resident a total of £100 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) issues at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident £200 compensation. The landlord can deduct its offer of £25 made at stage 2 if it has already paid this. The compensation is made up of:
  1. £100 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) issues at the property.
  2. £100 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. We order the landlord to contact the resident and ensure that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect her circumstances.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord consider installing new signage at the property to clearly identify the separate flats and the correct door bells for each of the 2 properties. This may minimise the disruption caused to the resident when there are deliveries for neighbour.