Peabody Trust (202335709)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335709

Peabody Trust

30 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The property is a converted house which is split into 2 flats.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 July 2023 and said she had been complaining about noise from her neighbour for 8 years. She said the landlord never dealt with the issue properly and every time a case was opened, it was closed down quickly.
  3. The resident said she had done everything asked of her and attended mediation with her neighbour. She said following that she had readjusted her outdoor camera and continued to send noise diaries, but never received a response back. She said she never heard back from the landlord following the installation of noise monitoring equipment in April 2023. The resident said she was kept awake almost every night which made her depressed and extremely tired. She said she would like sound insulation to limit the noise. She said she was disabled, and her health was deteriorating.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 19 July 2023. It said that the noise monitoring equipment recorded low level noise and was categorised as general household noise. It said the recordings were in line with the diary sheets she had provided. The landlord said it tried to mitigate the noise by arranging mediation. It said the session had positive outcomes and it encouraged her to continue to speak with her neighbour. It confirmed that as the noise did not meet the threshold for ASB, no further action would be taken.
  5. The resident continued to report ASB from her neighbours and approached the Ombudsman for further assistance. She said she had sent many noise diaries, videos, and proof of ASB and noise nuisance from her neighbour. She said she had suffered from verbal abuse, the stench of cannabis, and the constant noise was having a detrimental impact on her mental and physical health. The resident said she could not enjoy her garden and had to sleep in her lounge due to the noise. She said she wanted the landlord to sort out the soundproofing issue.
  6. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord, who then provided its stage 1 response on 22 April 2024. It provided the outcome of the sound monitoring equipment and mediation. It confirmed that all of her reported noise nuisance had been investigated and deemed to be general living noise. It said she last reported noise nuisance on 15 January 2024, and it was awaiting the diary sheets from her. It said it was unable to carry out soundproofing due to the type of property she lived in. It said it could put things in place to reduce living noise such as carpets and door closers. The landlord said the new neighbourhood manager would investigate any reported ASB. It said following receipt of diary sheets, it would also look into options to reduce noise transference.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 May 2024. She said that the noise machine did not function properly at the time and the neighbour was absent at that time too. The resident said the mediation was not positive and made the matters worse. She said she had been sending noise diaries for years and nothing was ever done. The resident said the stage 1 response did not address the stench of cannabis. She said she had contacted the police and she was told to contact her landlord, but nothing had been done. The resident said she had been diagnosed with pre-diabetes due to a lack of quality sleep and stress. She said she wanted the noise and ASB to stop so she could have a normal life.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 response was provided on 7 May 2024 and stated the following:
    1. It acknowledged that the resident had been reporting ASB since 2019 but advised that it would be reviewing its handling of the issue since April 2022. It outlined the actions it had taken such as opening ASB cases, mediation (30 March 2023), and installing sound recording equipment (April 2023). It said the case was closed on 14 May 2023 as the sound recording indicated every day living noise. It said mediation did not improve the resident’s relationship with her neighbour, but that they had both agreed sound insulation would help.
    2. It said the resident submitted a complaint on 7 July 2023 regarding the handling of her ASB case. It said it was logged as a service recovery case rather than a stage 1 complaint. It said a response was provided on 29 July 2023 and the service recovery case was then closed. The landlord said the resident reported further noise nuisance in January 2024 and was advised to forward any diary sheets.
    3. The landlord confirmed that it failed to log the resident’s formal complaint in July 2023. It said it cancelled 2 ASB cases and missed opportunities to investigate her reports in line with its ASB policy. This included failing to log reports as ASB, completing a risk assessment, agreeing an action plan, and providing a case closure letter.
    4. It concluded that its handling of the reports was poor and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It said it had logged a new ASB case and the neighbourhood manager would be leading on it. The landlord said they would be in touch to complete a risk assessment, agree an action plan, and follow the action plan through. It confirmed that soundproofing and tenancy enforcement action would be considered under the investigation.
    5. The landlord referred to the delays in its complaint handling at both stages and apologised. It offered a total of £500 in compensation. £200 was for the failure to investigate the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy and for cancelling ASB cases. £300 was for the complaint handling failures.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said the compensation was an insult, but it was not about money. She said it was about the noise and cannabis. She also believed she would not receive the compensation as it would be paid into her rent account. The resident said that as of 8 July 2024, she had not heard from her neighbourhood manager to put a plan in place. She said she was still being woken up most nights and dealing with the smell of cannabis. She said she wanted soundproofing to be installed and for the landlord to deal with her neighbours.

Post internal complaints procedure

  1. The landlord completed a risk assessment on 16 July 2024. It was noted that the resident required fruitful sleep as part of her health condition and was not able to do so due the neighbour. The landlord said it would send medical forms to the resident to complete to request a move on medical grounds. The landlord confirmed that the local authority could not provide any further assistance with the noise nuisance.
  2. The neighbour’s property was visited on 18 August 2024. It was noted that there was carpet throughout, apart from one room which had laminate over the carpet. It was also noted that the property was quiet. On 3 September 2024, the landlord confirmed it was looking to serve an acceptable behaviour contract to the neighbour in relation to their bike, cannabis smoking, and loud TV use after hours.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident first reported the issue with her neighbour in 2019. However, in line with the above, the investigation will focus on events 12 months prior to the resident’s first formal complaint in July 2023 up to the landlord’ stage 2 response in May 2024. Separate issues, and events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure have not been investigated and are referenced for contextual purposes only.
  2. The resident has referred to her health and how the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to any likely distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of the situation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from a neighbour

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours. It states that it will agree an action plan with the complainant and keep them informed of the actions taken. It said it will contact the resident when a case is closed and provide the reasons for doing so.
  2. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred, who is responsible, or if a room or property is inhabitable due to noise. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint. We can also assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure and followed good practice, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.
  3. In this case, it was not disputed by the landlord that its handling of the ASB reports was poor at times and that it did not follow proper procedure. The landlord acknowledged this in its complaint response, apologised and offered compensation. This assessment will consider whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes.
  4. It is recognised that the landlord did not always follow best practice. However, it should also be highlighted that there were some actions it undertook which were reasonable, in the circumstances. This included mediation. Mediation can be a good intervention tool in cases where the landlord has limited tools available to address the issue and in trying to help neighbours reach an understanding. It was positive for the landlord to have considered what other options were available to it and to have arranged the mediation. It is disappointing, however, that the issues continued following the mediation and the landlord did not do more to address the resident’s reports.
  5. It was also positive that noise monitoring equipment was installed and offered to the resident. In order for a landlord to take action against perpetrators of ASB, it has to be sure that it would be a justified response and have the evidence available. The landlord concluded that the noise indicated general living noise and took no further action. While this was reasonable, the resident raised concerns regarding the equipment and said her neighbour was away for most of the time that the equipment was in place. She also asked for a copy of the report. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide its position on the concerns raised by the resident and whether she could have access to the report. It is a failing that it did not do so.
  6. The resident had made it clear that she was seeking soundproofing as a resolution for the reported noise nuisance. The landlord’s position on this remains unclear. In the stage 1 response it stated that soundproofing was not an option for the property she lived in, but that it would look into other options to reduce noise transference. In the stage 2 response, the landlord said it would consider soundproofing. The landlord’s responses were confusing. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to outline what options were available to it, what it had already considered, and when it would consider them. This would have helped managed the resident’s expectations and shown effective decision making by the landlord.
  7. As well as the noise, the resident reported verbal abuse and cannabis use from her neighbours. The resident said the police did not take any action and signposted her back to her landlord. The landlord acknowledged that it did not follow its policy. However, it would have been reasonable for it to outline what action it had taken, such as the letter it sent to the neighbour on 30 June 2022. It could have also outlined what action it would consider going forward. This could have included if it would monitor the cannabis use, if it would liaise with the police, and what action it could take against the neighbour. The above actions would have shown the landlord’s commitment to following its policy and taking the resident’s reports seriously.
  8. Overall, the landlord failed to follow its ASB policy and as such, reports were not logged appropriately, there were no risk assessments, and no clear plan of action until the stage 2 response. The lack of communication from the landlord to the resident in relation to the verbal abuse and cannabis use by her neighbour was not appropriate. The resident had been reporting ASB from her neighbours for a significant amount of time and it is not appropriate that the issues remain ongoing. As stated, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have outlined what options were available to it, what it had already considered, and when it would consider them. Without this information, the landlord’s position on the reported ASB is unclear.
  9. The Ombudsman would have made a finding of maladministration if not for the landlord’s steps to put things right by accepting its failings and offering some compensation. Unfortunately, the £200 offered was not proportionate to the failings in this case and not all issues have been put right. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.
  10. An order will be made for the landlord to provide a position statement on the ASB case. The landlord must also pay £400 in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of the matter. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the landlord has acknowledged its failings, but the compensation offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It states that if more time is needed, it will provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be provided. It states that if an extension beyond 20 working days is required, both parties will agree it.
  2. The landlord took 2 working days to respond at stage 1, although the resident stated that she did not receive the response until 5 May 2024 due to it being sent via post. It took 40 days to respond at stage 2. The landlord did contact the resident regarding the delays, however, the delays were not acceptable. The landlord did acknowledge this in its stage 2 response. It explained the reasons for the delays which it attributed to an increase in complaints, and it said it was recruiting more staff to manage that.
  3. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that the resident initially complained in July 2023. It said it incorrectly logged it as a service recovery case rather than a stage 1 complaint. This failure led to the resident having to raise a complaint again the following year and delayed her in bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this and use its discretion to extend the scope of its investigation to April 2022.
  4. The stage 2 response provided was detailed and evidenced that the complaint had been thoroughly investigated. The landlord defined the outstanding complaint and applied appropriate remedies where it accepted it had gotten things wrong. This was in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. While the compensation for the ASB should have been higher, the £300 for complaint handling was proportionate, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  5. In light of the above, the Ombudsman has found reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves its handling of the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must provide a position statement to both the resident and the Ombudsman on the following:
    1. The current status of the ASB case. If any outstanding actions are specified, it must provide a timeframe for carrying out those actions.
    2. How the resident should report concerns regarding noise, verbal abuse, and cannabis use.
    3. Whether it will share the sound monitoring report or the accompanying assessment of the noise that it used to inform its position regarding the noise being “every day living noise”.
    4. Considerations it has made for soundproofing, as per its final complaint response.
  2. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £400 compensation for it’s handling of the ASB. This is inclusive of the £200 it previously offered. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and must not be used to offset any arrears.
  3. The landlord is to provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should reoffer the £300 it previously offered for complaint handling.