Peabody Trust (202445927)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202445927

Peabody Trust

30 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 response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Reports about the standard of communal cleaning.
   3. Requests for improvements to the ventilation system.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s:
   1. Complaint handling.
   2. Record keeping.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant. He has lived in the 1-bedroomed flat in a block of flats when the landlord is the freeholder since 1996. The original landlord merged with the current landlord in 2022. The landlord has confirmed the resident has physical and respiratory health concerns.
4. There is no evidence to confirm when the resident first reported the ASB, problems with the vents and the standard of cleaning in the block of flats. However, in April and May 2023, the landlord provided the resident with copies of action plans which covered these issues. The plans confirmed the landlord had repaired the ventilation fan, had given the resident a key to the side gate, and made enquiries into the standard of cleaning.
5. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 13 September 2023. He said:
   1. he had previously reported residents and visitors congregating on the steps leading to the entrance of the flats and he felt intimidated by this
   2. he had made previous suggestions on how to resolve the issue and said the landlord should send a letter to all residents as a reminder to be courteous, and a copy should also be put on the noticeboard
   3. changes to staffing had hindered progress on resolving the matter and he did not know who his Neighbourhood Community Specialist (NCS) was
   4. the standard of cleaning in the block was poor
   5. the landlord had upgraded the ventilation system, but he could still smell cannabis through the vents in his kitchen and bathroom
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 November 2023. In summary, it said:
   1. a temporary officer was covering the area while it recruited and trained new staff, but the resident could contact the Area Manager with any issues
   2. it had opened an ASB case in August 2022, completed a risk assessment and completed an action plan which included sending a letter to residents
   3. it had received counter allegations about the resident following the letter it had sent, so it had given him a key to the side gate for access
   4. the resident reported people congregating in December 2022, but as no further incidents were reported for 6 months it closed the case in June 2023
   5. it had reviewed the complaint about the cleaning, advised an annual deep cleaning programmes was done at the beginning of the calendar year, but it was keen to move this forward to complete this by the end of the year
   6. it had inspected the building and was satisfied with the standard of cleaning. It confirmed the block received 12 hours cleaning a week, that monthly inspections were done, and cleaning records were updated on the notice board
   7. all staff were British Institute Cleaning Science trained and used the right products to ensure cleaning standards were high, however it would arrange a meeting with the resident to discuss his concerns
   8. it was sorry the upgrade on the vent system had not resolved the issue with the smell in the flat, but said it had only been told of the continued issue via the complaint
   9. it would ask the contractor to assess the vents to discuss if other measures could be taken to address the issue
   10. if the resident could identify the flats where the smell was coming from, it would investigate the flats individually
7. The resident escalated his complaint on 20 March 2024 stating all the issues remained outstanding. He said he wanted the deep clean to take place, a letter put on the notice board regarding people congregating on the entrance stairs and said he could still smell the cannabis coming through the vents. He also said he had still not been told who the new NCS was.
8. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 17 June 2024. In summary it:
   1. said the vents were left in working order however it would raise a repair for the contractor to attend and discuss any potential action it could take
   2. advised there had been no recent reports of ASB from him or anyone else in the block
   3. confirmed it had written to all residents previously, however over 12 residents had contacted the landlord to say people were occasionally chatting with neighbours. The landlord advised this was not ASB and it would not be writing to the residents again
   4. confirmed it was happy the correct processes had been followed regarding the ASB, however a Neighbourhood Manager would contact the resident to discuss this further
   5. confirmed it was happy with the standard of cleaning, confirmed it met the resident in November 2023 to discuss his concerns, and a deep clean had been done, therefore it would not take any further action
   6. apologised for any upset or distress caused, especially as the resident was vulnerable
   7. confirmed it had not acknowledged the complaint escalation in line with its policy, and explained the team were going through structural changes, recruitment, and training to improve service delivery
   8. offered £100 compensation for the complaint handling, and £251 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience in pursuing updates on the vent system
9. The resident referred his complaint to us on 13 February 2025. He said:
   1. the overhaul of the vent system had not worked, and he could still smell cannabis
   2. a contractor had visited on 4 July 2024, but he had not received any further communication as to what would happen next
   3. a deep clean was done in March 2024, but the hours of cleaning did not match the specification
   4. there was still no update regarding his new NCS
10. As a resolution the resident asked for:
    1. an update on the contractor’s visit from July 2024
    2. an update on the new NCS
    3. the landlord to put a letter on the notice board regarding the congregating on the stairs
    4. an update on the investigation into the neighbours connected to the smell of cannabis in his flat

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on his health. We can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, but we cannot determine liability for damage to health. This is a matter better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, he should seek legal advice.

Reports of ASB

12. The landlord’s ASB Policy confirms its uses the Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition for ASB which is “conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person”.
13. The policy states it will:
    1. respond to reports of ASB within 2-working days
    2. assess all residents wishing to report ASB for their risk and vulnerability to ensure the appropriate level of support can be provided
    3. agree an action plan with the complainant and keep them informed of the actions taken
    4. close a case after investigation and where:
       1. it considers all appropriate action has been taken in line with the action plan agreed with the complainant
       2. there are no further reports for a period of 6 weeks
       3. no further action can be taken
    5. inform complainants who have reported ASB that the case has been closed by discussing the closure with them. Where it is unable to make contact a letter or email will be sent advising of the closure
14. The landlord has not provided any ASB records or evidence to confirm when the resident first raised the issue of resident’s congregating on the entrance stairs or the smell of cannabis through his vents. It has not provided a copy of any risk assessments conducted to confirm if any vulnerability was identified. This is a record keeping failure. The action plans for April and May 2023, provided by the resident, confirm the landlord completed the following actions:
    1. given him a key to the side gate to give alternative access to the building
    2. sent a letter to all residents regarding the congregating on the stairs
    3. referred the resident to the Advice and Wellbeing Team to see if any further support was needed
15. On 13 September 2023, the resident raised a complaint about his ASB concerns and the smell of cannabis in his flat. He asked the landlord to send a letter to all residents reminding them to be courteous, to put a copy on the notice board, and to send regular reminders and to investigate the smell.
16. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 November 2023. It confirmed a case had been opened in August 2022, a risk assessment had been completed, and an action plan had been formulated. There is no evidence to support the landlord’s response. This is a record keeping failure. It confirmed it sent letters to residents as per his suggestion, but said it received counter allegations about the resident. The landlord confirmed it gave him a key to the side gate to provide an alternative access point into the building. The landlord’s actions demonstrated it had listened to the resident’s concerns, acted on his suggestions, and looked for alternative access so the resident could avoid the groups he found intimidating. This was reasonable.
17. The landlord confirmed the resident had reported an incident of people congregating in December 2022, however no new incidents were reported for 6 months so it closed the case in June 2023. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident at that time to confirm it was closing the case and the reasons why. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy. In terms of the report of the smell of cannabis, the landlord asked the resident if he was able to identify the flats where the smell was coming from so it could investigate the flats individually. This was reasonable.
18. On 7 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord. He confirmed he had not been told the case had been closed and disagreed with the landlord’s response that no incidents had been reported between December 2022 and June 2023. He said he had logs in notebooks of conversations he had with the landlord and several verbally reported incidents. He said following that, he did not know who the new NCS was, so he had no one to report issues to. He asked the landlord to confirm who this was. He said he had not been told what the counter allegations were and asked for an update on these. He again asked the landlord to put a letter on the notice board.
19. The landlord replied to the resident on 7 November 2023. It apologised for not informing him the case had been closed and confirmed its actions had not followed its policy. The landlord confirmed it had asked for the case to be reopened, an officer to contact him to discuss the incidents he had recorded, and to agree if an action plan was needed. By 23 November 2023 the resident had not received any contact about the ASB case and no feedback regarding the cannabis smell. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident and re-opened the ASB case. This was a failure by the landlord.
20. In terms of the smell of cannabis, it confirmed it would ask the neighbourhood team to investigate the flats identified by the resident. It said any actions taken would not be directly communicated to him for data protection reasons, but it would confirm when it had spoken to the neighbours. There is no evidence the landlord made any further contact with the resident regarding its investigation. This was unreasonable as the landlord did not do what it said it would. An order has been made to reflect this failure.
21. The lack of action contributed to the resident’s complaint escalation on 20 March 2024. He said people were still congregating on the communal stairs and he could still smell cannabis through the vents.
22. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 17 June 2024. It said it had received contact from other residents who said the congregating was just occasional chatting between neighbours. The landlord said this was not ASB and it would not write to residents again. While this may be the case, it took until this stage in the complaint process to advise the resident of its position and that it did not class the congregating as ASB. This was unreasonable.
23. The landlord confirmed it was happy the correct procedures had been followed however as the resident remained unhappy, the Neighbourhood Manager would contact him to discuss the matter further. This was reasonable but to set the resident’s expectations, the landlord could have indicated when this would be. The landlord failed to provide an update on its investigations into the smell of cannabis. This did not provide the resident with any reassurance that it had conducted any investigation into his reports. This was unreasonable as the landlord has not provided evidence to confirm it did what it said it would.
24. In summary, we find maladministration. This is because the landlord:
    1. did not provide evidence to confirm the incidents reported by the resident between December 2022 and June 2023
    2. did not follow the ASB policy when closing the case
    3. did not provide evidence to confirm it re-opened the case as agreed, completed a risk assessment or an action plan for the incidents reported by the resident
    4. did not provide the resident with an update regarding its investigation into the smell of cannabis
    5. did not provide the resident with details on the counter allegations made against him, as requested
    6. did not identify any learning to prevent a recurrence of the failures highlighted
    7. did not offer any reasonable redress in recognition of its failures and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident
25. To recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings, an order has been made to pay the resident £250 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right.

Standard of communal cleaning

26. The landlord’s Estate Management Policy states:
    1. in-house and contracted communal cleaning services make sure communal areas are adequately serviced and clean. It will sweep and mop them regularly and keep them free from blockages and rubbish
    2. caretakers or contracted services will attend all sites at least once a week or the locally agreed frequency to carry out the cleaning
    3. it will visit communal areas regularly to make sure they are clean, tidy, and safe
27. There is no evidence to confirm when the resident first raised the standard of cleaning as a concern. However, as the issue was included in the action plans from April and May 2023, it can be assumed the landlord was aware of the resident’s dissatisfaction from at least that time. The plans confirmed the landlord had raised the concerns with the estate team and was waiting for feedback. There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with any feedback following the May 2023 action plan despite it saying the action was ongoing. This was unreasonable as it did not demonstrate it was responding to his concerns.
28. The resident continued to raise his concerns in his complaint on 13 September 2023. He referred to the lack of dusting, mopping, cleaning of bin chutes and the lack of a deep clean. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 1 November 2023. It confirmed it was looking to do its annual deep clean by the end of the calendar year and said residents would be informed of the possible noise and disturbance. It said it had inspected the building recently and was satisfied with the cleaning. It provided the resident with the hours of cleaning rota and confirmed it did monthly inspections to check the work and the records on the notice boards. The landlord suggested a meeting with the resident if he remained unhappy with the standard of cleaning. This was reasonable.
29. On 7 November 2023 the resident said he was only aware of 1 deep clean in all the time he had lived in the block. He said it did not happen annually as the landlord had stated. He suggested the landlord displays the hours of cleaning on the noticeboard as this differed from previous information received. The resident welcomed a meeting with the landlord to discuss the standard of cleaning, and this took place on or around 13 November 2023.
30. The landlord completed the deep clean on 2 March 2024. However, despite the landlord saying it would inform all residents of the deep clean to highlight the potential noise and disruption, there is no evidence it did this. This was a shortcoming of the landlord as it failed to do what it said it would.
31. The resident escalated his complaint on 20 March 2024 when he said the deep clean had not taken place. In its final complaint response on 17 June 2024, the landlord confirmed it had met the resident and confirmed all the issues raised were resolved which included the completion of the deep clean. It confirmed no further action would be taken. It did not however respond to the resident’s comments regarding the annual cleaning not being done, or the suggestion to display the cleaning specification on the notice board. This was unreasonable as it would have reassured the resident that it had taken his concerns seriously and confirmed it was meeting its cleaning obligations. This was a shortcoming of the landlord.
32. In summary, we find service failure. This is because the landlord failed to provide updates on the action plans from May 2023. The lack of communication contributed to the resident spending time and effort raising a complaint. The landlord met with the resident to discuss his concerns, however there is no record of what was discussed or agreed. We cannot assess if the landlord addressed all the points raised. The landlord did not provide evidence to confirm it informed residents of the deep clean and failed to respond to the resident’s challenge regarding the lack of an annual deep clean, or the suggestion of putting the specification on the notice board.
33. The resident may not have been significantly affected by the overall outcome, however he spent time and effort chasing the landlord for updates. An order has been made to pay the resident £50 for the inconvenience to him. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided.

Improvements to the ventilation system

34. The landlord’s Repair Policy states it is responsible for keeping in good repair and proper working order any installations provided. It will complete non-urgent repairs within 28-calendar days (average target of 10-working days)
35. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states it will consider payments for distress and inconvenience when a situation has impacted a resident in terms of use of their home, and will consider any avoidable stress, worry, anxiety, uncertainty, or frustration caused. It assesses compensation on the following:
    1. a service failure has occurred which is short to medium in duration with a short term (not permanent) impact (£50 to £600)
    2. a service failure has occurred which is medium to long in duration with a high, long, or short term impact (£600 to £1000)
36. As above, there is no evidence of any previous contact between the resident and landlord about this issue other than the landlord’s action plans from April and May 2023. This is a record keeping failure which prevents us from assessing if the landlord has followed up on any commitments made. In April 2023, the plan referred to the monitoring of a repair to the ventilation fan which was marked as “completed”. There was no specific reference to the smell coming through the fan. In May 2023, the action plan referred to making an enquiry to determine if it would be beneficial to put filters on the vents in the flat. This action was marked as “ongoing” but again, there was no specific reference to the smell in the resident’s flat. There is no evidence of any further update or communication to the resident regarding this. This is unreasonable.
37. The resident raised a complaint about the smell in his flat on 13 September 2023. He said he had been telling his previous landlord about the problem for “a number of years.” He said various promises had been made and while he had hoped the recent upgrade would resolve the problem, it had not done so. There is no evidence to confirm when the upgrade took place.
38. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 1 November 2023, it apologised that the upgrade on the system had not helped the smell in the flat. The landlord said it had asked the contractor to visit him to assess and discuss if any other measures could be taken to address the matter. This was reasonable as it demonstrated a willingness to try and resolve the issue.
39. The resident welcomed a visit from the contractor, however there is no evidence of the contractor visiting the resident. On 13 November 2023 the resident told the landlord he was still waiting to hear about the visit, and in his complaint escalation in March 2024, he raised the issue again. In its final complaint response on 17 June 2024, the landlord confirmed it had raised a repair for the contractor to attend and discuss possible solutions. This was 7 months after it first committed to sending the contractor to assess the situation. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy timescales.
40. Although the delay was not appropriate, the landlord recognised the distress and inconvenience to the resident and the time he spent pursuing the matter until this point. It offered £251 compensation in recognition of this. This was appropriate as it was in line with its Compensation Policy.
41. The evidence confirms the contractor visited the resident on 4 July 2024, 8 months after the initial commitment. The landlord’s repair records confirm a note from the contractor which suggests a remedy would be to “do away with the extractor fan that runs via the duct and core drill though the bathroom and kitchen.” There is no evidence the landlord discussed the outcome of the visit with the resident or that it made any progress following the contractor’s suggestion. The resident contacted the landlord for an update in September 2024 but there is no evidence of a response from the landlord. The lack of communication and progress on the matter was unreasonable. As such a finding of service failure is appropriate.
42. In recognition of the lack of communication, the time spent pursuing the landlord for updates following the final complaint response and the additional distress and inconvenience to the resident, an order has been made to pay the resident a further £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

43. The landlord’s Complaint Policy states:
    1. it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
    2. it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days, both from the acknowledgement date
    3. if at any stage an extension is needed, the landlord will communicate with the resident
44. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords should:
    1. acknowledge, define, and log stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
    2. issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20-working days of a stage 2 complaint escalation request
    3. decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10-working days for stage 1 complaints and 20 working days for stage 2 complaints without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
45. The resident raised a complaint on 13 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged receipt of 12 October 2023 and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 November 2023. In its response, the landlord thanked the resident for agreeing to the extension of the deadline. There is no evidence to confirm when the extension was agreed or if the landlord responded by the date agreed. This was unreasonable and was a record keeping failure.
46. The resident escalated his complaint on 20 March 2024. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the request. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy. On 31 May 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to extend the deadline by 10 working days. The landlord provided its final complaint response by the deadline given, however the landlord took 60 working days to provide a response. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the policy or the Code.
47. In the complaint response the landlord recognised its complaint handling failures. It apologised for the inconvenience and offered £100 compensation. The landlord took reasonable action to “put things right” for the resident. It recognised its failing, apologised, offered compensation, and confirmed the improvements it was making to the complaint team which included a restructure, further recruitment, and additional training. The amount offered is in line with our remedies guidance which suggests amounts of up to £100 where the resident has not been significantly affected. As such, a finding of reasonable redress is made.

Record keeping

48. As per our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, we expect landlords to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. Failure to do so can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
49. The evidence shows the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted our ability to conduct a thorough investigation. This includes limited or no information regarding the reports of ASB, the smell of cannabis, the reports of cleaning standards and the subsequent action taken. This has contributed to the other failures identified in this report. As such we find service failure with the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

50. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the residents reports of ASB.
51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the residents reports about the standard of communal cleaning.
52. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the residents request for improvements to the ventilation system.
53. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
54. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

55. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence to confirm it has:
    1. written a letter of apology to the resident for the failures highlighted in this report
    2. paid the resident a total of £651 compensation, broken down as follows:
       1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s failures relating to the ASB
       2. £50 for the time and effort invested by the resident chasing updates from the landlord regarding the standard of communal cleaning
       3. £351 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s failures to address the improvements to the ventilation system
       4. this is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it may already have paid in relation to this complaint
       5. the payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide us with confirmation of the payment
    3. contacted the resident to:
       1. discuss the outcome of the contractor’s visit from July 2024, its position on the contractor’s suggestion, and any timescales for the work to be done
       2. agree a period of monitoring following the completion of any work to the ventilation system
       3. provide an update on its investigation into the smell of cannabis
       4. provide him with information (as requested by the resident) on the counter allegations made against him
56. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence to confirm it has reviewed its handling of the ASB and confirmed any learning to prevent a recurrence in future cases so it can ensure it complies with its ASB Policy.

Recommendations

57. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £100 that was offered in the final complaint response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis this compensation is paid.
58. The landlord should consider displaying the cleaning hours and specification on the noticeboard as suggested by the resident.
59. If it has not already done so, the landlord should confirm to the resident who the NCS is for his area.