Peabody Trust (202406719)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202406719 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Peabody Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Shared Ownership |
|
Date |
28 November 2025 |
Background
- The resident is a leaseholder of a 1 bed flat on the 3rd floor in a block. The resident considers that the matters she sets out in her complaint have negatively affected her ability to sell the property.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
- The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
- The resident’s reports of cleaning and maintenance issues in the communal areas of the block.
- The landlord’s complaints handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We found the landlord responsible for:
- Service failure in its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)
- Service failure in its response to the residents reports of cleaning and maintenance issues in the communal areas of the block.
- Reasonable redress in its complaints handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Antisocial behaviour (ASB)
- The records provided to us do not show that the landlord communicated effectively with the resident in relation to her ASB reports, nor did its action align with its ASB policy.
Maintenance and cleaning of the communal areas
5. We have not seen records of when some of the works were completed, and some of the repair reports by the resident were not acted upon. However, the landlord responded appropriately when the resident raised reports about the cleaning of the block.
Complaint handling
6. The landlord’s complaint handling did not follow its policy nor our Complaint Handling Code and there were significant delays in its responses. However, the landlord acknowledged this at stage 2 of its complaints procedure and offered the resident fair redress.
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.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Compensation order
The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of maintenance issues and the resident’s ASB case. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.
|
No later than 7 January 2026 |
|
2 |
The landlord should contact the resident by the due date to discuss her recent ASB reports and to decide whether to open an ASB case.
|
No later than 16 December 2025 |
|
3 |
The landlord must contact the resident by the due date so that she may go through any maintenance issues in the communal areas of the building that remain outstanding and arrange inspections or raise works where necessary. |
No later than 16 December 2025 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident £500 in compensation it offered her at stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
13 August 2023 |
The resident complained to the landlord at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. She said:
|
|
February – March 2024 |
The resident wrote to the landlord again to report ASB from a resident in her block which included drug dealing, theft, vandalism, and noise nuisance. In response the landlord:
|
|
April 2024 |
The resident and her neighbours made further reports of ASB coming from one of the residents. The resident also reported fly tipping and noted that while contractors had completed the painting in mid-April, the repairs and improvements to the area beside the lift and the roof of the electrical cupboard were still outstanding. |
|
31 May 2024 |
The resident asked to escalate her complaint as she said that other than the painting, the matters she had raised were still outstanding. |
|
24 October 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman in November 2024 |
The resident referred her complaint to us in November 2024. She said that the ASB was ongoing and that there were still ongoing maintenance problems in the block that the landlord had not resolved. |
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.
What we did not consider
In her discussion with us, the resident has raised issues around the level of her service charge. We cannot consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or, the increase of service charge or rent, or disputes about billing and calculations. Complaints that relate to the level of service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and the resident may wish to contact the FTT should she wish to pursue this.
The resident has said that in its response to her complaint, the landlord did not consider the reports made by other residents in the block about ASB and repairs. The landlord would not be at liberty to disclose reports made by other residents and include these in its investigation of the issues raised in the resident’s complaint, as it was investigating its response to her reports only. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports.
The landlord’s internal complaint procedure investigated and responded to several issues. However, the resident has since confirmed to this Service that she only considers the issues defined above to be outstanding and that the other issue of the complaint has been resolved. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on the three issues that are still outstanding.
|
Complaint |
The resident’s reports of ASB |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- On 13 August 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about the impact that ongoing ASB around her property was having on the prospect of selling her home. The landlord has confirmed that it had not reviewed its records prior to 2021, and that this report was the first made by the resident since 2021. The resident did not include any specific references to incidents of ASB in her complaint, however it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have followed this up with her at the time.
- From the records provided by parties, the resident first made specific reports of ASB, including theft, drug dealing, vandalism, and noise disturbance, on 1 February 2024. The landlord followed its procedure by contacting her the next day, sending her an email, and arranging a further telephone call. This was in line with its ASB policy which said that it will respond to reports of ASB within 2 working days.
- Given that some of the reports related to criminal behaviour, the landlord directed the resident to contact the police to report this. This advice was in line with its policy which says that where the prime responsibility to lead an investigation lies with another service, such as the police or the council, it will support the investigation and take any necessary supporting action. The police are the lead agency where reports relate to criminal behaviour. They hold broader powers than the landlord to investigate such matters and decide whether to pursue a prosecution.
- Further, any reports made to the police, could help the landlord in obtaining evidence against a perpetrator to allow it to consider what steps it should take itself to address the ASB. The resident said that she did not always contact the police as she did not consider that they would act on her reports. However, she has since said that she has been able to successfully log reports online.
- When the resident and other neighbours reported ASB again in a joint email to the landlord in April 2024, the landlord responded that it could not address a problem with drug dealing in the block, and they should report this to the police. It also said once the police obtained a conviction then they would be able to enforce the tenancy using the conviction as evidence.
- While the landlord said that its actions against the ASB perpetrator depended on the police, this was not entirely accurate, as the landlord also had its own responsibilities to manage tenancy breaches and take action regardless of police involvement. Further, the landlord can pursue civil remedies, such as an ASB injunction order, which are not dependent on the involvement of the police. A landlord can and should undertake its own investigation even where the resident had reported criminal behaviour to the police. The landlord had told the resident that it could not disclose the actions it had taken against her neighbour in response to her reports because of data protection restrictions. Notwithstanding this, it is not clear from the evidence provided what steps the landlord took to undertake its own investigation alongside any police investigation.
- The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will agree an action plan with the complainant and any witnesses to ASB and keep them informed of actions. It will contact parties when it closes a case, giving its reasons for doing so.
- We have seen no evidence that the landlord undertook risk assessments or completed action plans with the resident to show what both the resident and the landlord had agreed to do to gather evidence of ASB, particularly as the resident and landlord were both aware that other neighbours had reported similar issues to the landlord. Risk assessments would have helped to inform the landlord’s next steps. Action plans would show what both the landlord and resident had agreed to do to gather evidence of ASB, which would help the landlord to consider whether it needed to take formal action against the perpetrator of ASB.
- Clear record keeping and management is essential where reports of ASB are made, and investigations into allegations are undertaken. This is because such records form evidence which the landlord may review and rely on in its management of the ASB case. Accurate and complete records also help a landlord review its handling of the ASB case through its complaint procedure, and to provide evidence during other processes including Ombudsman investigations and legal proceedings. The absence of appropriate records, and therefore evidence, presents a significant risk that such processes cannot be fully utilised, and residents are disadvantaged.
- It is important to highlight that courts will expect a landlord to take legal action only as a last resort, save for the most extreme cases, and a landlord would be expected to explore all other options first, before considering legal action. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will explore options such as mediation, warnings, and work in partnership with the police and other agencies to address the ASB.
- In the landlord’s correspondence with the resident’s MP, it had said that it was engaged in multi-agency working to address the issue, and it acknowledged that the perpetrator was a vulnerable resident. However, notwithstanding data protection restrictions, it is not clear from the evidence provided that the landlord kept the resident sufficiently updated, and she had to chase for information.
- In June 2024, the landlord confirmed that there had been a reduction in the ASB, and it was working with partner agencies to resolve the issue. The resident was clearly frustrated at having to restart the ASB investigation process whenever further incidents occurred, following a period without any ASB. While this is understandable, ASB can take many forms and will often involve cases where the reported behaviour is sporadic. A landlord can only investigate issues as they arise and must do so in a reasonable and proportionate way. It must respond to reports following its policies and procedures and legal obligations.
- Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s approach to the ASB reported. It missed an opportunity to follow up on the resident’s report of ASB in September 2023. It is unclear from the evidence provided what steps it had taken to investigate the resident’s reports of March 2024 and what it had asked her to do to gather evidence of ASB incidents, when as she said, they were ongoing.
- The landlord noted in its stage 2 complaint response that it did not have records of the resident making ASB reports prior to 14 September 2023, when she had not provided details of the ASB. They said that they did not receive further ASB reports from the resident after March 2024. As noted above, there was a further report by several residents in a joint email dated April 2024.
- However, overall, the actual reports made by the resident happened over a short period of time and the landlord did take steps to contact the resident and discuss her reports by telephone and email. Although we are aware that other tenants and leaseholders had also reported ASB in the block, nevertheless, we can only investigate the landlord’s response to reports made by the resident.
- For this reason, we make a finding of service failure and order the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 for her distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in pursuing this matter. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident about her more recent ASB reports, if it has not done so already, and to open an ASB case if they consider that her reports meet its criteria for doing so.
|
Complaint |
The resident’s reports about maintenance and cleaning in communal areas. |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it will complete urgent repairs between 2 to 24 hours. It will complete non urgent repairs within 28 calendar days, and programmed repairs or specialist works within 60 calendar days.
- The resident’s lease says that the landlord will “so far as practicable” keep the common parts adequately cleaned and lit. It will also maintain, repair, improve, redecorate, and renew the common parts of the block.
- The resident raised concerns about visitors to the property tampering with the magnetic strip to the communal door, so that it did not lock on closure. She said that this was a security concern. The resident has told us that the landlord had repaired the door, however it has not provided us with records to confirm this. This means that the landlord has not been able to clearly show what steps it had taken to resolve the resident’s concerns and its overall management of the issues.
- The landlord addressed resident’s concerns about graffiti and raised works to repaint the communal areas to cover graffiti in February 2024. It also raised a job to inspect the CCTV in the building. These were reasonable actions, in line with its responsibilities. However, the records do not show the outcome of the CCTV inspection.
- However, the resident reported again at the start of April 2024, that repairs and painting was still outstanding. She confirmed on 15 April 2024 that contractors had painted over the graffiti. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted her beforehand to explain the reason for the delay. The resident spent time and effort chasing this. Effective communication would have reassured the resident that matters remained in hand.
- Further, on 15 April 2024, the resident also reported that there was an issue with the wire mesh over the maintenance cupboard and asked the landlord to repair this. We have not received evidence to show the outcome of this. It is unclear whether the landlord had raised this as a repair or if the resident received further contact in response to this request. This was unsatisfactory. The landlord should have followed this up with the resident to let her know what it would or would not be doing in response to her request.
- The resident reported on 1 July 2024 that the standard of the cleaning of the communal areas was poor. In response, the landlord was proactive in contacting the resident the next day, following up with a call later that week and by flagging up with the contractors about the areas that required improvement. Following further reports by the resident, the landlord had arranged an inspection of the building, with the resident, so that it could address any issues that she raised with the contractors. This was a reasonable response by the landlord.
- Overall, while the landlord did respond to the resident’s reports about cleaning, graffiti, and CCTV in the building, it did not communicate effectively with her about the scheduling of the works. Moreover, its records do not show the outcome of the CCTV inspection, whether it had ever inspected the wire mesh over the cupboard and when it had repaired the door. For this reason, we make a finding of service failure and order the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord acknowledged that it did not follow its policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code by not issuing a formal stage 1 complaint response and not escalating the resident’s complaint when she asked for this. It was six months before the landlord responded to the issues raised at stage 1. It responded to the resident’s stage 2 request 84 days outside of its published response timescales, which was unsatisfactory.
- The landlord acknowledged that the resident would have spent time and effort chasing for a resolution to her complaint, and that this caused her distress. It offered the resident £500 in compensation for its complaint handling failings and identified learning going forward to improve its service delivery. The landlord’s award of compensation was within the range of financial redress in our remedies guidance for a service failure which had adversely affected the resident. For this reason, we find that the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to this investigation, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- Landlords should ensure that they complete risk assessments for all ASB cases to identify potential harm and inform appropriate actions. They should develop and agree clear action plans with complainants, setting out responsibilities for evidence gathering. They should record and monitor similar reports from other residents to strengthen decision-making and case management.
Communication
- Landlords should keep in regular contact with residents when they have reported repairs. Where any works may be delayed, they should inform residents of the reasons for this and give revised timescales for completion of works, to manage their expectations.