Peabody Trust (202425849)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425849

Peabody Trust

18 September 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 16 August 2021 and is in supported accommodation. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the third floor of a 3-storey building.
The resident first notified the landlord in November 2022 to report that his neighbour had CCTV installed and it was pointed at neighbouring properties, including his front door. The neighbour lives diagonally across the communal landing from the resident.
The resident logged a complaint on 1 November 2023 about his neighbour’s behaviour. He raised a further complaint on 17 December 2023 saying his mental health was being affected by the neighbour. He felt his privacy was being violated due to the neighbour’s cameras; one facing his front door and two in the community garden area. The resident said the issue has been passed around from one department to another and he wanted the landlord to act and have the cameras removed.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 21 February 2024 as he had not received a response to his last complaint. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 29 February 2024. It said that:
1. It had logged his previous complaints as problems with his neighbour, which were raised to be investigated by the neighbourhood manager and not as a complaint about its handling of the reports of ASB.
2. The video footage the resident had sent was going to be sent to the Community Safety Specialist but was not, so would now be addressed.
3. That the police had investigated and were taking no further action.
4. It would send a letter to the resident explaining its position on CCTV.
5. It was working with the neighbour to have the cameras she installed in the communal gardens removed.
6. It was difficult to get people to remove front door cameras, and it advises residents that they become the data collector of any footage they capture, and they need to adhere to the guidelines set by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
7. It would continue to work with both the resident and the neighbour to try to come to a resolution about both of their front door cameras.
8. It offered £50 in compensation for not responding to the report of ASB and the video footage the resident provided in November 2023.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 4 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 22 April 2024 and provided its response on 22 August 2024. It said that:
1. It found that the stage 1 response was reasonable.
2. There was a delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2 and apologised for this.
3. It has sent residents guidance on the legislation and polices in relation to the correct use of CCTV.
4. It had instructed the neighbour to remove the cameras from the communal garden area and would continue to liaise with the neighbour about this.
5. It had suggested that the neighbour replace their doorbell camera with a set up that only records their front door or that they redact the coverage area of their current camera that covers the resident’s front door, although it said it would not be able to monitor this. It said it would continue to liaise with the neighbour about the position of the doorbell camera.
6. It offered £130 (including the £50 offered at stage 1) made up of:
  1. £70 to increase the amount offered at stage 1 by £20.
  2. £60 time and trouble for poor complaint handling, calculated at £10 per month for approximately 6 months the complaint had been open.
The resident contacted this Service on 27 September 2024 as he was not happy with the landlord’s complaint responses. He said he wanted the landlord to acknowledge he is a victim of ASB from the neighbour, and it should ensure the neighbour’s cameras are removed.
The resident raised further complaints about the landlord’s handling of ASB in September and October 2024. The complaint was about the neighbour’s cameras as well as recent incidents where he said he felt harassed by the neighbour. He said he did not feel that the landlord was listening to him about the ASB that had been going on for years. At first the landlord said it would not be logging a new complaint as the issue had already been through its internal complaints process and the next step was to come to this Service. After the resident said he was unhappy that the landlord was not going to log a new complaint, it agreed to do so. The landlord then logged a stage 1 complaint on 9 October 2024.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the new complaint on 4 February 2025. It said that it:
1. Apologised if the resident did not feel heard.
2. Could see various ASB cases pertaining to the neighbour and resident about each other and this was being investigated by its community safety team. It said it was not able to comment further on the ASB cases.
3. Understood that it may be confusing to have communication with several different staff about the issue.
4. Offered £50 in compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience for the delay in responding to the complaint.
The resident did not escalate this complaint to stage 2 and the landlord told us it has closed it as resolved.
The resident has told us that the cameras are still up and in the same positions and that he is not sure of the status of any ASB cases that involve him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is important to explain that the Ombudsman is unable to comment on matters that fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body. The matter of whether the neighbour’s camera doorbell is a breach of data protection laws would fall to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider.
The Ombudsman can assess the appropriateness and adequacy of a landlord’s response to reports of ASB. This includes considering whether a landlord’s response was fair, reasonable and in line with any relevant policies or procedures.
We are aware that there have been reports about the resident’s behaviour, including allegations of ASB from the neighbour. We have noted it for context, although this report focuses on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB about his neighbour.
It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident and he told us this has impacted his mental health. The evidence shows the neighbour dispute has been ongoing for a considerable period. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any damage to the resident’s health or wellbeing.

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy says it:
1. Aims to ensure it takes a victim-centred and robust approach to tackling ASB and that customers are treated in a fair and equitable manner.
2. Will assess all customers who report an incident of ASB for their risk and vulnerability. It will work with other agencies as needed to ensure the right level of support is provided.
3. Will respond to reports of ASB within 2 working days.
4. Will support the investigation and taken necessary supporting action, where the prime responsibility and power to lead an ASB investigation is with another service, such as the Council or the police.
5. Will agree an action plan with the complainant and keep them informed of the actions taken.
6. Will close the case after all appropriate action is taken and if there are no further reports of ASB for a period of 6 weeks.
7. Will contact the complainant when it closes a case and give the reasons for doing so.
The landlord’s occupancy agreement says that residents:
1. Must not behave in a way which will cause, or is likely to cause, a nuisance to anyone.
2. Must not harass or threaten other people in the neighbourhood. This includes anything which an ordinary person ought to know would interfere with the peace and comfort of someone else or be likely to offend them.
The landlord’s surveillance policy says that it is not unlawful for residents to install doorbell cameras, provided they comply with the legislation and the ICO guidance. The policy also says that the landlord is not responsible for residents’ actions in this regard nor is it able to monitor whether residents are legally compliant in the use of these cameras. It says that residents should seek permission from the landlord to install their own CCTV equipment.
The ICO’s guidance on home CCTV systems says that where people capture images or audio recordings from outside of their property boundary, they must have a clear reason for using the CCTV and make sure the camera does not capture more than they need to.
The resident called the landlord on 28 November 2022 to report the neighbour had installed CCTV and it was pointing at neighbouring properties, including his. The landlord’s internal notes show that it was not sure which neighbourhood manager to refer this to and there is no evidence that it followed up on the resident’s concerns, which was unreasonable. This likely made the resident feel that his concerns were not taken seriously by the landlord.
The resident raised an online complaint on 1 November 2023 alleging that his neighbour was harassing him by regularly coming out of her flat and screaming abuse at him. The resident was notified on 6 November 2023 that his housing officer had asked the resident’s neighbourhood manager to talk to the neighbour, and he forwarded the videos from the resident showing the behaviour. The resident did not hear back after this and the evidence does not show any action taken, which was not appropriate or in line with the ASB policy.
The resident raised an online complaint on 17 December 2023 about the neighbour and the landlord’s handling of the concerns he had raised previously about the neighbour. He said his mental health was being affected as the neighbour had placed a camera facing his front door and cameras in the communal garden space. He explained that he was staying away from the property because of the invasion to his privacy and feeling that he was being harassed.
The resident did not hear back about this concern and chased the landlord in January 2024. This was outside of its timeframe to respond to a report of ASB. The landlord said it would pass the resident’s concern about the cameras to the neighbourhood manager to contact the neighbour on its CCTV policy. The landlord said the case was passed to its community safety team.
The landlord’s community safety specialist called the resident on 17 January 2024. She was calling the resident to question him as a perpetrator of reports from the neighbour and said she did not have information about his reports. While it was reasonable for the landlord to contact him when getting reports about him, it was unfair that the resident was not contacted as a victim in response to his reports and he was understandably upset about this. In addition to discussing the concerns about himself, the resident was told that the landlord would ask the neighbour to remove the external cameras facing the communal area. It said the landlord could not require the neighbour to remove her doorbell camera but would make suggestions about changing the set up, so the camera was only facing her door.
During the call on 17 January 2024, the resident was offered a referral to the wellbeing team, which he accepted. As the resident expressed the impact the ASB was having on his mental health, this was the correct step for the landlord to take. The evidence shows the resident did connect with and keep in touch with a wellbeing officer over a period of months.
The landlord reiterated its position about the neighbour’s cameras in the complaint responses in February 2024 and August 2024. It said it had instructed the neighbour to remove the cameras from the outside communal garden area and suggested the neighbour change their current front door camera setup. It did not say what steps it would take if the neighbour refused.
The resident’s housing officer visited him on 2 September 2024. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take but is something that should have been done sooner, in our opinion, so the landlord had a full understanding of the issue. The camera gave the housing officer concern. He said that the neighbour’s doorbell camera was on a bracket that was angled to point towards the resident’s door, rather than capture in front of her door. He said that if the ring device was angled differently, this would protect her home rather than being focused on the neighbour’s front door.
The housing officer shared this concern with the landlord’s complaints handler, who said the complaint was closed and it should be shared with the neighbour’s neighbourhood manager. There was an internal meeting on 3 October 2024, and it was agreed a new ASB case would be opened and linked to the old case so the issue could be investigated. The resident was notified about this. He said he did not trust the ASB team to conduct a ‘thorough and impartial’ investigation.
The landlord held an internal meeting on 17 January 2025, and the notes say that it had been unsuccessful in getting the cameras moved. The plan following this meeting was for the landlord to speak to ‘legal’ to get a letter to the neighbour to get the external cameras removed and to move the angle of the front door camera. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it followed through with this. Despite the resident asking it what the plan was, it did not tell the resident what it intended to do. This was not appropriate and left the resident feeling hopeless that the landlord would ever address the issue. He has told this service that he gave up and stopped contacting the landlord about the issue around this time.
The landlord closed the ASB case in June 2025 as no further incidents had been reported. This was not the correct step for the landlord to take as the underlying issue of the cameras was not resolved despite the landlord agreeing to take steps to address the issue. There is no evidence the landlord notified the resident it was closing the case, which has left the resident unsure about what, if anything, the landlord intends to do.
The landlord’s CCTV policy says residents can have doorbell cameras and it is not responsible for residents’ actions regarding this. However, it has a wider responsibility to address the concern of possible harassment by the position of the neighbour’s doorbell camera. We will make a recommendation that the landlord considers the link to potential ASB issues when it next updates its CCTV policy.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB after considering it:
1. Did not address the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its policy.
2. Did not keep the resident updated throughout the case.
3. Did not communicate well internally to come up with a plan to address the issue within a reasonable timeframe.
4. Has not followed through on the action it said it would take about the neighbour’s cameras.
5. Has closed the ASB case despite the main issue of the neighbour’s cameras not being resolved.
The location of the cameras is causing distress to the resident and could be considered to constitute harassment. If the landlord had acted appropriately and in line with its policies and processes, it would have given the resident assurance that it was doing all it could to address the situation. The landlord taking appropriate action may have reduced further incidents of ASB between the parties, such as the neighbour’s reports of the resident removing her doorbell camera.
In its complaint responses, the landlord has offered £70 in recognition of failures in responding to the reports of ASB. When considering the failures by the landlord and the level of inconvenience and distress caused to the resident, the offer of compensation is not sufficient, in our view.
The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay £300 in compensation (including the £70 already offered), which is in line with its compensation policy. We will also ask the landlord to provide an apology for its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
As the concerns about the neighbour’s cameras have not been adequately addressed, we will order the landlord to review its position by doing the following within six weeks:
1. Reopen the ASB case.
2. Speak to the resident and the neighbour about the cameras.
3. Create an agreed action plan and timetable, in light of this report, which may include seeking legal advice.
4. Provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of the agreed action plan.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says there are things that will not be dealt with through the complaints procedure. This includes the first-time reporting noise or ASB.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge new complaints within 5 working days. After the complaint is acknowledged, it will respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. If more time is needed, it will explain this to the resident and extend the response timeframe to no more than a further 10 working days.
The resident raised a complaint on 1 November 2023. This complaint was about his neighbour’s ASB. The landlord sent this information to the community safety team. As this complaint was about the neighbour’s behaviour, it was within policy and reasonable for the landlord to not log this as a formal complaint, bur deal with it through an ASB case.
The resident raised a complaint on 17 December 2023. In this complaint, he expressed dissatisfaction that the issues had been raised, and the landlord had not acted. This complaint was about the landlord’s handling of the ASB, rather than a complaint solely about the neighbour. This should have been logged as a formal complaint and was not, which was a failure by the landlord.
The resident continued to contact the landlord about the complaint. On 21 February 2024, he asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 as he had not had a complaint response. The landlord then logged the resident’s complaint. The delay in logging the complaint caused an approximate two-month delay, which was not reasonable and understandably would have caused frustration. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 29 February 2024.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 4 March 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 22 April 2024, which is outside of its 5 working day timeframe.
The stage 2 response was due to be issued by 20 May 2024. The landlord contacted the resident on this date to say it needed more time. The policy states that this additional time should have been no more than 10 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 August 2024. This was an approximate three-month delay and was not reasonable or in line with the landlord’s policy. The landlord apologised for the delays and offered £60 specifically for complaint handling.
The resident raised further complaints following the stage 2 response. The landlord initially said that it would not log these as new complaints as it was the same issue as the previous complaint. This was a reasonable response by the landlord as the next step to escalate the complaint is having the Ombudsman review the complaint.
The landlord then changed its position on this and logged a new complaint about the handling of the ASB reported by the resident. It acknowledged a new stage 1 complaint on 9 October 2024.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 February 2025, which was outside of its response timeframe. The response referred the issue back to the landlord’s community safety specialist. The landlord apologised and offered £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
In our view, the landlord’s complaint response was not adequate as it did not investigate and address the resident’s concerns. It missed an opportunity to review its actions up to that point and consider what needed to be done to resolve the situation.
The landlord offered a total of £110 in compensation for the delays in complaint responses (for the same complaint issue). We have considered whether this is a reasonable amount for the failures in complaints handling.
We are satisfied that the £110 compensation offered by the landlord represents reasonable redress for the failures in respect to complaint handling. In our opinion, this was proportionate to its failures to follow the complaints policy and procedure, and the offer was in line with the landlord’s policy. We will recommend that the landlord pay this amount if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in response to its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £300 in compensation (including the £70 already offered) for distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified.
Within 6 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Reopen the ASB case.
2. Speak to the resident and the neighbour about the cameras.
3. Create an agreed action plan and timetable, taking into consideration the themes and findings in this report, which may include seeking legal advice.
4. Provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of the agreed action plan.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord now pay the resident the £110 it offered in response to its complaint handling. A finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that this has been or will be paid.
It is recommended that the landlord considers the link to potential ASB issues when it next updates its CCTV policy.