From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Peabody Trust (202408674)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408674

Peabody Trust

22 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from her upstairs neighbour.
    2. Her request to be rehoused.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom first-floor flat, and the landlord is a housing association. The resident has mental health vulnerabilities and is under the care of the community mental health team.
  2. On 18 January 2023 the resident reported loud music from her upstairs neighbour. She said they had been playing music from midnight to approximately 7 am and that the noise vibrated through to her flat. The landlord opened an ASB case on the same day. She also said she had been experiencing and reporting this noise transference for approximately 11 years and that this had affected her mental health, which the landlord was aware of.
  3. On 3 February 2023 the resident asked the landlord to move her to a new property due to the noise nuisance, which she reiterated had been ongoing for several years. The landlord advised her it would need to conduct a risk assessment to demonstrate the impact of the neighbour’s behaviour before it could consider moving her. It also advised there were other options as well as an internal move. The resident requested help with completing housing application forms and mutual exchange application forms on this date.
  4. The resident made at least 10 reports of ASB and noise nuisance between March 2023 and October 2024. She also requested a management transfer and assistance with rehousing on several occasions.
  5. On 16 October 2024 the resident made a stage 1 complaint via this Service. She said:
    1. There was loud music from her upstairs neighbour. The landlord had misplaced her noise app recordings and her completed diary sheets.
    2. She had received inadequate advice from the landlord in response to her ASB/noise nuisance reports.
    3. She wanted to be moved and compensated for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble.
  6. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 31 October 2024. It said:
    1. The resident’s previous housing manager had contacted the resident to discuss the ASB reports and agreed an action plan with her. The housing manager had not followed through with the action plan nor had they kept the resident updated. The housing manager had since left the organisation and the resident’s messages had all gone to their previous inbox.
    2. The resident’s case had now been assigned to a new housing manager, who would update the resident soon.
    3. It apologised for the lack of communication and management of the resident’s ASB case. It offered the resident £100 compensation.
  7. The resident made a stage 2 complaint via this Service on 13 November 2024. She said she felt that the stage 1 response had not answered her concerns. She wanted to be compensated and moved to an area closer to support networks.
  8. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 27 December 2024. It said:
    1. Its first record of ASB/noise nuisance was from June 2020, and the landlord opened an ASB case. It carried out an investigation and the neighbourhood manager issued a warning letter to address the situation.
    2. Between 2020 and 2024, the resident continued to report incidents of ASB on several occasions. During this time, it had provided her with diary sheets to record the noise nuisance. It acknowledged, however, that it had fallen short in meeting her expectations and its commitments.
    3. It had failed to follow through on actions outlined in her action plan. There was a significant lack of communication from the landlord, which left the resident without updates and reassurance. It apologised for this.
    4. It noted that the alleged perpetrator had moved out of the property in August 2024. It was “relieved” that there had been no further reports of ASB since then. It recognised its shortcomings during the period when the incidents were ongoing, which caused the resident significant frustration and discomfort.
    5. It had learned from the complaint and would feed back to relevant teams for training and a process review to improve in the future.
    6. It apologised for its delay in escalating her stage 2 complaint.
    7. It would not increase the compensation and offered the resident the £100 originally offered in its stage 1 response.
  9. On 8 January 2025 the resident asked us to investigate as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She felt the landlord had not taken her concerns seriously. She said the situation had impacted her mental health. As an outcome to her complaint, the resident wanted to be moved out of the property and financial compensation for the distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has stated that the handling of this matter by the landlord has led to a deterioration in her mental health. While we appreciate the resident’s distress, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, and the resident may wish to pursue this through the courts. We have, however, considered the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
  2. The resident has stated that the ASB/noise nuisance dates back several years. While we understand the resident’s frustration, the Ombudsman will usually only investigate complaints which were brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the issues occurring. This is to give the landlord the opportunity to investigate the issues whilst they remain ‘live.’  While some earlier events have been noted for context, this investigation has focused on events from 18 January 2023 until the landlord’s final complaint response of 27 December 2024.

ASB and noise nuisance

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy uses the Antisocial behaviour, Crime, and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB. This includes conduct that is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy and noise nuisance information on its website says:
    1. Residents should report ASB within 6 months of the event, to allow for a timely investigation.
    2. All residents who report an ASB incident will be assessed for their risk and vulnerability to ensure the appropriate level of support can be provided. It will provide support and advice to victims of ASB and refer them to external agencies where appropriate. It considers resident vulnerabilities when deciding intervention actions and ensures people are treated according to their individual needs. It works in partnership with statutory services, including the local council, other statutory services and external agencies, including support providers.
    3. It will respond to reports of ASB within 2 working days. It will agree an action plan with the complainants and keep them informed of actions it may take. It will contact complainants when it closes a case, with reasons for doing so. It will only close a case where it considers all appropriate action has been taken in line with the agreed action plan.
    4. It acknowledges that repeated incidents of noise can have a serious impact on a person’s life. It will investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours. Some noise nuisance will involve issues outside of its statutory responsibilities. In this case, it will work with the relevant authority, such as the local council.
    5. If residents have contacted the local council regarding noise nuisance, and it does not improve then the landlord will investigate. In some cases, it will install noise monitoring equipment to gather more information. If it considers the noise to be unreasonable, it can offer mediation, issue official warning letters or acceptable behaviour contracts. It can also work with the local council (environmental health noise team).
    6. It will use a range of preventative measures, early intervention, signposting to mediation service and legal action to tackle ASB. The methods will be proportionate to the seriousness, impact and frequency of the behaviour and the evidence available to support the case.
  3. There is no dispute that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance. The landlord has acknowledged this, apologised, and offered £100 compensation. However, it did not go far enough to provide redress for the significant adverse effect on the resident.
  4. It was appropriate that the landlord opened an ASB case on the day the resident reported loud music from her neighbour’s flat on 18 January 2023. It also emailed her diary sheets, which was further reasonable. However, in her report of 18 January 2023, the resident had told the landlord that she had already contacted the local council several times recently and the situation had not improved. As noted in its policy, the landlord will work with third parties to resolve issues. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the local council noise team to make enquiries about what action they had taken or to otherwise pursue the matter. The fact that it did not, caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the issue, as well as distress and inconvenience.
  5. When the resident reported further issues on 3 February 2023, it was reasonable that the landlord asked her to complete diary sheets. This Service understands that landlords need a significant amount of evidence before they can pursue any enforcement action. It was also reasonable that it opened an ASB case and asked for the resident to include any video or audio evidence in its email to her of 24 February 2023. It also gave her details of a support organisation and provided contact details of its safeguarding teams.
  6. However, there is no evidence on file that the landlord conducted a risk assessment until August 2023 and this is a failing and contrary to its policy. The landlord was aware of the resident’s mental health vulnerabilities and it did not consider these or directly refer her to any support services. Furthermore, the landlord did not complete an action plan with the resident, which caused her additional distress and inconvenience and left her with no information as to possible next steps.
  7. Also, it did not offer to assist her with the audio evidence, nor did it offer to install any noise recording equipment or liaise with the local council noise team. It would have been appropriate for it to consider these options. This is particularly pertinent, as the resident had significant mental health vulnerabilities and had asked for help from the landlord. Also, the resident had already told the landlord that she struggled with using the internet and computer-based systems. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer support and assistance, as per its ASB policy. The fact that it did not, is a failing which caused the resident further distress and frustration.
  8. Also, there is no evidence that it considered alternative dispute resolution measures such as mediation or otherwise provided a position on this. This is contrary to its policy and a further failing.
  9. It was reasonable that the landlord requested the resident be approved for the noise app on 17 March 2023. This is so she could record the noise, and the landlord could listen to the recordings to further evidence the case. However, there is no evidence that it pursued this, and the resident had no means to record the noise, nor did it offer to instal any noise recording equipment of its own. The policy says that it may do this, and the fact that it did not consider this is a further failing.
  10. When the resident reported the neighbour threatening her and continuous loud music on 9 August 2023, it was reasonable that the landlord logged this as an ASB incident on the same day. It was further appropriate that it conducted a risk assessment with the resident and sent her an action plan on 16 August 2023. It was appropriate that the landlord visited the neighbour on 24 August 2023 and spoke to him about the allegations. It was further reasonable that it asked the resident to sign a consent form so that it could liaise with the police, regarding the threatening behaviour.
  11. However, there is no evidence that it attempted to mitigate the situation. There is no evidence that it considered any acceptable behaviour contract as outlined in its policy. Nor did it chase up the noise app request from 17 March 2023. Had it had noise app recordings, the landlord could have considered its actions accordingly. Further, the landlord continued to advise the resident to contact the local council to report late night noise disturbances. Given that the resident had already explained that she had not had any engagement with the local council, the landlord should have assisted her to engage with them. It may also have been appropriate for the landlord to consider installing noise recording equipment of its own, but it is not evident it considered this. Additionally, there is no evidence that it considered any measures for reduction in noise transference. Although major works can be costly for landlords, it would have been reasonable to consider some sort of noise reduction such as improved insulation or soundproofing, or otherwise to have explained why this wasn’t necessary. The noise was having a major impact on the resident and the landlord did not do enough to consider her individual needs.
  12. Also, due to her mental health vulnerabilities and the impact on her, the resident requested a referral to tenancy support on 25 August 2023. On 19 September 2023 the landlord refused to accept the referral and it considered that these were not required for the ASB case and this is a failing. It was aware of her mental health difficulties and did not offer her the support she asked for. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will offer support to residents and consider individual needs and vulnerabilities. The landlord did not abide by its own policy and this is a failing, particularly as the resident’s risk assessment highlighted her mental health difficulties and need for assistance. This caused the resident distress and frustration.
  13. When the resident reported 7 further incidents of late-night noise nuisance from 1 February to 17 February 2024 the landlord opened a further ASB case, which was reasonable. It also carried out a risk assessment with the resident which was appropriate.
  14. However, despite the fact that the resident provided 2 week’s diary sheets on 17 February 2024, the landlord did not contact the resident to update her of any actions until 6 March 2024, after the resident pursued the matter on at least 3 occasions. This is not in line with its policy, which states that it will keep residents updated of any ASB actions.
  15. The landlord’s records note that it emailed the local council environmental health team (noise team) on 6 March 2024 to ask it to reinstate the resident’s access to the noise app. This is because the council’s policy is that landlords must give permission before a resident can register with the noise app. However, there is no evidence of this email on file. Strong record keeping is a prerequisite to providing a good housing management service and it is a failing that there are no records of any communication with the local council. Had it had robust records, the landlord could have monitored the noise nuisance situation in a more timely and efficient manner. This caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the issue and continued to impact on the enjoyment of her home.
  16. The landlord did not provide a written response to the resident’s reports of ASB from February 2024 until 15 November 2024, after intervention from this Service. This is 9 months and an unreasonable delay, and significantly outside the landlord’s policy. Also, it was not appropriate that the landlord told the resident that as the neighbour was no longer living at the property, it had closed the case. This was not resident focussed. It failed to acknowledge the fact that the resident had chased the landlord for a response on several occasions, whilst the issue was ‘live’ and that it did not complete an action plan with her at the time. This had caused the resident significant frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
  17. As stated above, although the landlord has acknowledged failings in its handling of ASB, it did not go far enough in addressing the failings and acknowledging the significant impact on the resident. As such, we have made a finding of maladministration. We have ordered compensation of £500. This is £400 for distress and inconvenience and £100 for time and trouble. This replaces the £100 previously offered by the landlord. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a failing which significantly affected the resident, and the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation. We have also ordered the landlord arrange ASB and noise nuisance training to all relevant staff.

Rehousing

  1. The landlord’s lettings policy states that it lets properties through local authority nominations and via its own internal transfer list, as well as through reciprocal agreements with other housing associations and councils. It maintains a limited internal transfer list to help rehouse existing residents in priority need of rehousing.
  2. It defines ‘vulnerability’ as a condition or circumstance which puts an individual at risk of losing their home or any situation, which without support or intervention, places them at risk or causes detriment to their overall wellbeing.
  3. Its rehousing policy states that it will make sure that residents have access to clear and relevant information about their housing options. It says the following:
    1. It only directly rehouses residents who are in priority need for alternative accommodation.
    2. It aims to prioritise those who have an urgent need to move.
    3. It will assess all applicants to determine whether they are in high priority need for an internal transfer. This is determined through its ‘Priority Moves Panels.’ It will consider management transfers and other social welfare cases through this process.
    4. It defines a priority move as a management transfer when a resident is experiencing violence, harassment or hate crime, amongst other criteria.
    5. It also operates a social welfare transfer process. This is when the applicant may have a disability or medical need as well as exceptional circumstances, where their current housing is having a severe adverse impact on their daily life.
    6. The ‘Priority Moves Panel’ will also consider if other options could be explored, including housing through the local council’s allocation policy.
  4. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that it subscribes to an internet based mutual exchange service which allows tenants to register their interest in a mutual exchange and find suitable properties.
  5. The resident first requested assistance with rehousing on 3 February 2023. She told the landlord she had poor mental health and was suffering from ASB. She also told it that she did not know how to use the internet and needed help with application forms and navigating the applicable housing websites.
  6. The records show that the landlord did not assist her with this, and did not provide her with information regarding the housing options available. She chased this repeatedly until 14 March 2023 and received no information or assistance. This is contrary to its policy as it did not provide clear and relevant information about her housing options. This is particularly concerning as the landlord was aware the resident was vulnerable and needed additional assistance. This lack of information and assistance is a failing which caused the resident distress and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
  7. She requested a move again on 7 September 2023, following the ASB incident. The landlord had evidence on file that she had mental health vulnerabilities and she was under the care of a psychiatrist. Although the landlord’s records state that it would send her a medical assessment form, there is no evidence of this form on file. Also, the resident states that she never received the application form and we have seen no evidence to the contrary.
  8. The landlord’s rehousing policy states that it will assess all applicants to determine whether they are eligible for an internal transfer. There is no evidence on file that the landlord assessed the resident’s request, either as a management transfer or a social welfare transfer. This is contrary to its policy and a failing on the part of the landlord. Regardless of the outcome, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to follow its policy and carry out an assessment on the resident. It would also have been reasonable to discuss other housing options if she were not deemed to be eligible. The fact that it did none of these things is a failing, which caused the resident additional distress and impacted on the resident and landlord relationship.
  9. The records show that the resident pursued her request for rehousing several times between February 2023 and October 2024. Within this time, the landlord did not discuss rehousing options with her, did not assist her with completing any forms online, and did not carry out any assessments to determine suitability for a housing transfer. This is a failing, which caused the resident significant distress and time and trouble in pursuing the issue. As such, we have made a finding of maladministration.
  10. We have made an order for £400 compensation. This is made up of £300 for distress and inconvenience and £100 for time and trouble in pursuing the issue. This is in line with our remedies guidance, where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right. We have also made an order for the landlord to complete a social welfare transfer assessment form with the resident and to discuss all other housing options available to her. It should also assist her with any housing applications or refer her to a service to assist her with these.

Complaint handling

  1. This Service’s complaint handling code (The Code) sets out that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
  2. The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy states that it offers discretionary compensation of between £50 to £400 for complaint handling failures, depending on the severity and adverse effect on the resident.
  3. In its complaint responses, the landlord failed to address the resident’s request to be re-housed. It acknowledged this was part of her requested outcome but failed to assess this or provide any reasons or decisions regarding her move request. This is not resident focussed. This is not in line with The Code and is a failing on the part of the landlord. It also failed to acknowledge its failings in its handling of her move request. It made no mention of any action plan regarding her move request and offered no apology or compensation for this. This caused the resident distress and frustration.
  4. As such, a finding of service failure is made. We have made an order for £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or put things right.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance from her upstairs neighbour.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
  3. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report
    2. Arrange training on its noise nuisance and ASB policies to all relevant staff.
    3. Complete a social welfare transfer request application form with the resident and inform her of the outcome.
    4. Inform the resident of all housing options available to her and assist her with filling in application forms online and in person (or refer her to a service who will do this with her).
    5. Pay the resident £1,000 compensation. This replaces the amount previously offered by the landlord and should be paid directly into her bank account and not offset against any arrears (if applicable). Any amount already paid by the landlord may be deducted from the total. This is made up as follows:
      1. £400 for distress and inconvenience in pursuing the ASB and noise nuisance issue.
      2. £100 for time and trouble in pursuing the ASB and noise nuisance issue.
      3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience in respect of her rehousing request.
      4. £100 for the time and trouble in pursuing the rehousing request.
      5. £100 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.