Peabody Trust (202423287)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423287

Peabody Trust

23 April 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 antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise transference from the property above.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She moved into the property, a 2-bedroom flat, in February 2019. She lives in the flat with her daughter who is under the age of 18. The resident has disclosed that she has mental health vulnerabilities and confirmed that she has informed the landlord.
  2. The records from the landlord have incorrect or inconsistent dates relating to some incidents, including during the complaints process. For this reason, we will refer to the month of the incident on occasions where we cannot verify the actual date of incident.
  3. In March 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour had been banging on his floor to cause a noise nuisance, shouting through the floor, and racially abusing her in the presence of her child both in public and through the floor. Internal records indicate that the resident had already submitted diary sheets to the landlord, but we have not been given copies of these. It asked her to provide new diary sheets along with evidence of any police involvement. On 28 March 2023 the landlord discussed the report with the neighbour who denied all incidents. It issued an informal warning to the neighbour which asked him to stop making unnecessary noise, and to avoid any contact with the resident.
  4. The following day, the resident made a complaint about the neighbourhood manager and their handling of the ASB. It issued a stage 1 response on 7 April 2023 which said:
    1. It could not find any service failure in the neighbourhood manager’s handling of the case.
    2. It did not have sufficient evidence of ASB to take any action against the neighbour.
    3. It would offer support through its Tenant and Family Support Team (TFST).
  5. On 13 April 2023 the resident expressed her unhappiness at this response and requested that her complaint was escalated. The landlord acknowledged her request on 25 April 2023. The resident made more reports of ASB from her neighbour throughout May and June 2023, and the landlord installed noise monitoring equipment at the end of June 2023 for a 2-week period.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 7 August 2023. It said while it did not have sufficient evidence to initiate tenancy action against her neighbour, it acknowledged that there had been unnecessary delays in communication with her. It awarded £300 compensation made up of £225 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience relating to ASB and £75 for complaint handling. The resident accepted this compensation but due to delays with the landlord’s processes it was not paid until the end of October. It paid an additional £20 in recognition of this delay.
  7. The landlord closed the ASB case on 18 January 2024 as it had not received any diary sheets or additional evidence of ASB. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 March 2024 and listed 10 additional incidents between December 2023 and March 2024. The new neighbourhood manager called the resident on 7 March 2024 to discuss her concerns. Records indicate that this conversation was tense, and the neighbourhood manager passed the case to his manager shortly after. On 11 March 2024 the landlord sent another informal warning to the resident’s neighbour.
  8. On 4 April 2024 the resident made another complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the ASB and the noise from the floor above. She also stated that she was unhappy with the lack of communication from the landlord and believed that the original neighbourhood manager had hung up the phone on her.
  9. A formal warning was issued to the neighbour on 16 April 2024 following reports that he was banging on the floor and had been racially abusive. The landlord called the resident on 10 July 2024 and informed her that while the flat above had been surveyed the work was more extensive than it had hoped, and it was gathering additional quotes. It asked the resident to submit diary sheets as it had not received any and recommended that she use a noise app to gather additional evidence.
  10. The landlord issued a complaint response on 26 July 2024 and confirmed that it had received quotes for the work to the floor above and would start imminently. It apologised for the lack of communication and awarded £75 compensation. The resident responded on 28 July 2024 to say she was not happy with the response as she felt the compensation was disproportionate to the amount of distress she had experienced. Additionally, she asked the landlord to clarify the date that repairs would begin. She said that she felt the landlord had got away with failing to protect her and her child, and the neighbour had not been challenged regarding his behaviour.
  11. On 22 August 2024, following chase emails from the resident, the landlord emailed her to explain what actions it had taken in relation to the neighbour’s behaviour and the floor. It said that:
    1. It opened a community safety case in September 2022 and closed it in January 2023 as it did not receive any further reports.
    2. It had opened a triage case in February 2023 which was closed on 10 March 2023 as police closed her complaint of racial abuse as no further action.
    3. It opened an ASB case on 21 December 2023 and ultimately issued a warning to the neighbour on 7 March 2024.
    4. The complaints team did not investigate or respond to complaints, instead it was management and the head of service for the area being complained about.
  12. On 27 September 2024 the landlord issued a stage 1 ‘review’. It upheld her complaint in relation to communication issues, but confirmed that it had taken appropriate action regarding ASB. It awarded £150 compensation for time and trouble. The resident responded to say she was unhappy with this and felt that the landlord was contributing to her feeling unsafe in her home. She said she had experienced panic attacks and anxiety due to the ASB. It issued a stage 2 complaint acknowledgement on 3 December 2024.
  13. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 6 December 2024 and acknowledged that there had been unreasonable delays with resolving the floor noise, and communication issues throughout. It awarded compensation of:
    1. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to communicate and respond to correspondence, and the distress due to ongoing floorboard repairs.
    2. £150.00 for complaint handling, including the delay in providing the stage 1 response and delays in escalating her complaint to stage 2 which led the resident to approach this Service for advice.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This Service recognises that the concerns the resident has reported have affected and caused distress to her and her daughter. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as tenancy breach in the same way as the courts. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise transference from the property above.

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states:
    1. It will respond to ASB reports within 2 days.
    2. Where responsibility for investigation lies with another agency such as the police, it will support the investigation.
    3. It will use a range of preventative measures, early intervention, signposting to mediation services and legal action to tackle ASB.
    4. It will agree an action plan with the complainant and any witnesses and keep them informed of the actions it will take.
    5. It will provide a clear update when it closes the case.
    6. It will investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours.
    7. It will process personal data and information in accordance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and its own policy and procedures.
  2. Its hate crime policy also states that it will support victims to report any incidents to the police and will carry out a risk assessment if it receives any report of hate related crime.
  3. We have seen evidence that the landlord requested diary sheets to document the incidents that the resident was experiencing. In the resident’s correspondence she said that she provided several diary sheets to her original neighbourhood manager in March 2023, and they did not act on them. We have not seen any record of these diary sheets, and the landlord has also not indicated that it has seen them. It is understandable that this was frustrating for the resident, and she expressed that she felt ignored.
  4. This Service acknowledges that the resident’s feelings on the situation, particularly the alleged racist language, are based on her own experiences. While her experience cannot be discounted, our role is to assess the landlord’s response to complaints about racial discrimination rather than concluding whether discrimination took place.
  5. In this case the resident’s neighbour admitted to one instance of using racially offensive language. The landlord gave them a warning and said that if this behaviour reoccurred it would consider acting as permitted in the tenancy. The resident reported that the neighbour was using racially abusive language regularly throughout the period investigated. The neighbour denied this allegation, and the landlord noted that it had no evidence of this behaviour.
  6. While the resident was unhappy that the landlord did not take legal action against the neighbour it was appropriate for the landlord to continue supporting the resident to report further incidents to help gather evidence of the ASB.
  7. The decision to install noise monitoring equipment was positive, as this would provide objective evidence to add to the ASB case. While we have seen notes indicating that the recordings were listened to, there is no record of what the recordings found. It communicated to the resident that there was not enough evidence on the recordings to act, and the resident also said in her communication that the neighbour was quiet during the period the equipment was installed. Based on this information, we have concluded that the recordings did not contain evidence of noise nuisance.
  8. The landlord’s record keeping in this case was poor. There is no record of any of the diary sheets submitted by the resident, no notes relating to what the noise monitoring equipment found, and several dates of events were incorrect or confusing. We have seen 2 risk assessments that the landlord completed during the ASB process, however both are undated. It should have clearly dated these documents so that it could determine whether the actions it took had any positive impact on the risk level of the case.
  9. Throughout the investigation period the resident informed the landlord of how the ASB was affecting her. She said that she did not feel safe in her home, she had panic attacks, her anxiety increased, and she felt forgotten by the landlord. Additionally, she said that her daughter was scared by the behaviour, and she was worried it would affect her performance in school. In its communication, the landlord acknowledged this and gave advice on where she could find additional support. However, the ongoing communication issues created additional stress and conflict between the resident and the landlord at a time when she should have felt supported.
  10. The resident complained about noise transference, noise nuisance and squeaking floorboards from the flat above on 4 April 2024. The landlord surveyed the floor in July 2024 and determined that it needed to complete extensive works. As of the date of this report, the work has not been completed. Landlord records show that it found signs of asbestos in November 2024 which put a stop to works.
  11. It is understandable that it would take precautions if there was asbestos in the property, however we have not seen an asbestos report, or confirmation that asbestos is present. If asbestos was present, it is expected that the landlord would have removed it or had a plan to respond to it and there is no evidence of either. It is 5 months since the work halted, and there are no signs of progression or updates to the resident. During this time, the resident is still experiencing noise disturbance and has told this Service that she feels ignored and forgotten about.
  12. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB and noise transference. The decision not to take action against the neighbour was appropriate and proportionate based on the level of evidence we have seen, but the communication and record keeping was poor. The delay in repairing the neighbour’s floor has added to the detriment the resident has experienced.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord issued a timely stage 1 response to the first complaint in this case however the stage 2 response came 72 days after it acknowledged the request for escalation.
  2. It awarded £75 compensation in recognition of this delay. This amount is consistent with its compensation policy which awards between £51 and £150 for moderate complaint handling failures.
  3. The landlord did not formally acknowledge the second complaint at stage 1. It provided a response 80 working days after the resident made the complaint. During this 80-day period the resident chased the complaint response and requested escalation to stage 2 due to the lack of response. The landlord offered £25 compensation which was inconsistent with its approach to the previous complaint and was not reflective of its compensation policy.
  4. The resident escalated to stage 2 on 28 July 2024 and the landlord did not formally acknowledge this request. It issued a second stage 1 response, which it said was a stage 1 review, 44 days later. In this response it awarded an additional £150 compensation but did not break down what portion of this was for complaint handling. It escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 4 November 2024 but only sent a formal acknowledgement 22 working days later. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 6 December 2024 which was 25 working days after the initial acknowledgement. While this was only slightly over the 20-day guideline in the policy, the formal acknowledgement was considerably delayed.
  5. In an email dated 20 August 2024, it said “our complaints team do not investigate or respond to complaints. This is done by the staff member’s line manager and if the complainant is not happy with the response it is then escalated to the Head of Service”. This information was incorrect. The complaints policy in place at the time stated “the stage one investigation will be carried out by a case manager who is fully trained to handle complaints. If a complaint is raised to stage two of our process, an independent review of the complaint will be carried out by the customer experience team”. It awarded £150 compensation for delays at both stages of the complaint process. It is unclear whether this included the £25 awarded at stage 1.
  6. In total, the second complaint was ongoing for 8 months. This is not reasonable and is well above the timescales within the landlord’s complaint policy. The resident had to regularly chase responses and approached the Ombudsman for support as she felt that the landlord was ignoring her.
  7. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code was introduced in 2022 and sets out best practice for landlord’s complaint handling procedures. Under the Code, a process with more than 2 stages is not acceptable under any circumstances as this will make the complaint process unduly long and delay access to the Ombudsman. The addition of a second stage 1 response framed as a review resulted in the complaint process being 3 stages in practice.
  8. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to the complaint. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any failures and the steps it has taken to offer redress and learn from the complaint can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. In this case, while the landlord offered compensation for its complaint handling failures, it did not fully reflect the extent of the failures. Such failures included considerable delays, poor communication, the introduction of a stage 1 review and failure to acknowledge the resident’s complaint in accordance with its policy. There was also an overall inconsistency to its complaint handling as the first complaint was handled more effectively than the second. For the reasons above, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise transference from the property above.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this case. These include its complaint handling, delays with soundproofing in the flat above, and communication failures. The apology should be in the resident’s preferred format and a copy must be sent to the Ombudsman.
    2. Pay the resident £800 made up of:
      1. £500 in recognition of the ongoing time, trouble, distress and inconvenience relating to the landlord’s handling of repairs in the flat above.
      2. £300 in recognition of the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience relating to the landlord’s complaint handling.
      3. The £450 awarded in the second complaint can be deducted from this amount if it has already been paid. Proof of payment must be provided as evidence.
    3. Provide the resident with an estimated date of completion for the works in the flat above. It should also specify how long it expects the work will take to be completed, and whether she will experience any disruption. A copy of this must be provided to the Ombudsman.
  2. Within 12 weeks of this report the landlord must arrange for refresher training to its complaint handling staff. A copy of the training plan should be provided to the Ombudsman along with a date of estimated completion.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider where it stores diary sheets and evidence in ASB investigations. It should ensure that they are visible to all relevant staff, and that all risk assessments are clearly dated to ensure it can track any escalation of risk.
  2. The landlord should consider whether any wider cyclical works intended to improve the energy efficiency of the property, such as additional insulation, could have a positive impact on the acoustics between properties. If so, it should provide a timescale for when this work will be completed.