Peabody Trust (202448851)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202448851

Peabody Trust

29 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom first-floor flat in a block. Her tenancy started in May 2020. The landlord is aware the resident has health vulnerabilities.
The resident raised numerous ASB and noise complaints to the landlord between October 2024 to March 2025. These included reports of noise nuisance, alleged drug use, trespassing through insecure access points, damage to property and alleged targeted harassment. While a variety of addresses were reported from within and outside her block, in this case, the resident raised concerns about two neighbours. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to them as ‘flat A’ and ‘flat B.’
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 3 November 2024. The resident raised her complaint again on 4 January 2025 when she said:
1. the landlord had refused to act on the ASB reports she continued to make, and she was forced to live in untenable, unsafe conditions
2. the landlord was not protecting her as a vulnerable resident, and she continued to be ignored
3. the landlord had failed to engage or contact her or her support worker (SW)
4. she had developed mental and physical illnesses because of the issues raised
5. she wanted to move to another property with immediate effect
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 January 2025. In summary, it said:
1. it had met twice with the local council’s ASB team and noise team, the police, and her SW to discuss a joint approach to resolving the issues
2. it had taken numerous steps and had provided the resident with many options to make her feel comfortable enough to engage with it, but she maintained her refusal to meet
3. it could not grant an immediate transfer as she was suitably housed and was not at risk in her home
4. it had acted accordingly on receipt of the ASB reports, but the resident refused to engage, especially with the neighbourhood manager (NM)
5. residents have the right to have their reports investigated and it would attempt to engage as per its policies, however if the resident did not engage, it was limited in the action it could take as it was unable to conduct a full investigation
6. it had received allegations against the resident and her refusal to discuss these could result in action being taken against her tenancy
7. its goal was to engage with the resident, allow a better relationship to move forward and support her, and it was happy to meet in a location of her choice
The resident escalated her complaint on 23 January 2025. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 21 March 2025. In summary, the landlord:
1. said it had consistently investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns and that diary sheets were always taken seriously
2. advised it had held 2 meetings with external agencies to discuss the case, the resident’s reluctance to engage, and said it hoped it could work with her in a way she was comfortable
3. explained it did not offer a soundproofing service as requested by the resident and signposted her to guidance on how it managed noise nuisance
4. apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the neighbour’s behaviour, and while it did not provide specific details due to data protection, it advised it was in regular contact with him and had offered support
5. provided a response to the additional points raised by the resident including a bar lock, an upgrade to the door entry system, access to the rooftop, and forming a positive relationship with her
6. said it had listened to the resident’s concerns for better communication in relation to such important matters and it would use the feedback to improve its services
7. acknowledged the complaint handling delays, offered an apology and £50 for the delay, the distress, and inconvenience
The resident brought her complaint to us on 21 March 2025. She said the landlord had not addressed the points raised and had not taken accountability for the series of failings she had been subjected to.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident asked for:
1. compensation for the impact on her health, lack of soundproofing, the landlord’s repeated failures to engage with her and act on the reports made, the delays, criminal damage, and failing to make the rooftop safe
2. an apology, and a protection plan until a move could be arranged
3. soundproofing, the landlord to remove all musical instruments from the neighbour, and the relocation of the television from the shared wall in the neighbouring flat
4. the neighbour to be moved out of the building

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on her health and belongings. 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 or belongings. These are matters 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 these matters further, she should seek legal advice.
The resident has stated she has been reporting ASB since 2018 and wants a response to each report made. This is not disputed, however we encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still “live,” and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as us to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
Furthermore, we have recently determined a case linked to the landlord’s handling of ASB (202420072). This investigation considered events from April 2023 to the final complaint response on 14 August 2024. For clarity, we may not investigate complaints which seek to raise again matters which we or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. As such, this investigation will consider events that occurred after 14 August 2024 through to the landlord’s final complaint response on 21 March 2025. Any reference to other events will be to provide context only.
The resident has asked for a move to a different property. This is not something we can order the landlord to do. This is because it would be subject to assessing the resident’s needs, the availability of properties, and the priority of other applicants. Further, the resident has asked the landlord to move her neighbour from the building. This is not something we can order the landlord to do as it would likely involve legal action.

Response to reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy outlines how it will address ASB and noise nuisance reports. It states:
1. it will respond to reports of ASB within 2-working days and will complete a risk and vulnerability assessment of residents who report ASB to ensure it provides the appropriate support
2. it will agree an action plan and keep residents informed of any action taken
3. noise nuisance must be unreasonable and substantially interfere with use or enjoyment of a home
4. it does not consider noise from everyday living or lifestyle differences as examples of noise nuisance or unneighbourly behaviour
5. where the prime responsibility and power to lead an investigation lies with services such as the police or the local council, it will support the investigation and take any necessary supporting action
6. it will close a case if it is resolved, if there are no reports for a period of 6 weeks (unless it has begun legal action or is gathering further evidence), if it can take no further action, or earlier if agreed with the resident
It is not our role to establish whether someone has committed ASB, but to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will determine whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own policies and procedures.
The resident raised several ASB reports relating to flat A (a resident from the neighbouring block) between 31 October 2024 and 15 March 2025. The reports referred to flat A accessing her block through the rooftop (this linked the 2 blocks), lingering at her door, ringing her front door camera, listening into her property, leaving race hate messages outside her door, and damaging property. The resident told the landlord the behaviour left her “petrified, isolated, trapped and in fear of leaving her home.”
On 31 October 2024, the landlord informed the resident it had raised a case for the NM. The resident made reports of a similar nature on 3 and 5 November 2024 in which she confirmed she had reported the incidents to the police. The landlord made a referral to the advice and wellbeing team on 6 November 2024, and on 12 November 2024 attempted to complete a risk and vulnerability assessment with the resident. The resident declined to engage, however the landlord’s actions were appropriate and in line with policy.
The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 13 and 19 November 2024 to discuss the reports but could not speak to her. It left voicemails and sent emails asking for her availability to speak. The resident asked the landlord to copy her SW into any contact. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and demonstrated it was trying to contact the resident to discuss the reports made.
On 9 December 2024 the resident reported ASB from flat B (her neighbour). She said, “he does nothing but sit all day, blasting the TV, music, playing his acoustic guitar causing noise nuisance at unsociable hours.” She said, “he gets drunk, smokes crack all day and coughs so loud I can hear him drawing up phlegm.” She referred to his behaviour as “barbaric” and “inconsiderate.” The resident said the landlord refused to act and protect her peace and safety and her diary sheets had been ignored. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the report and confirmed it had added it to the active case. This was reasonable.
While there is evidence of contact and meetings regarding the resident’s wellbeing, there is no evidence of any investigation conducted by the landlord. It is not disputed the resident’s reluctance to engage was an aggravating factor to the investigation, but there were other means available to the landlord which it did not evidence it explored. Examples could have included visits to the blocks, extra patrols, rooftop inspections, door knocking exercises, letter drops, and an evaluation of the video footage provided by the resident. This in turn meant there was a lack of communication to the resident and her SW regarding the actions it had taken. This is likely to have contributed to her feeling ignored and believing the landlord was not taking the appropriate action. This was not reasonable.
On 19 December 2024, the landlord met with agencies including the police, the local council’s ASB team, noise team and environmental health team. The landlord’s notes confirmed the focus of the meeting was how to encourage engagement from the resident, however there was no evidence of a discussion around the reports she had made. A follow up meeting was planned for 16 January 2025, but there is no evidence of the outcome of this meeting or any progress being made.
Within her complaint, the resident raised several points including the upgrade of the door entry system, securing the access points to the rooftop, a request for the landlord to soundproof the property, a review of all the emails, reports and video evidence provided, and compensation for the damaged front door camera. The landlord confirmed a project to upgrade the door entry system would begin within the next 8 weeks. It also advised it was not liable for the damage to the ring doorbell as it had not installed it and confirmed it did provide soundproofing. It provided signposting information regarding an insurance claim, and how it investigated noise. This was reasonable.
Considering the above, we find maladministration. This is because the landlord:
1. did not work with the SW to complete a risk and vulnerability assessment and action plan when the resident demonstrated reluctance to engage
2. did not set the resident’s expectations as to the reports it could and could not investigate and act on
3. did not demonstrate any evidence gathering through methods that did not involve engagement from the resident
4. did not provide the resident with reassurance as to the action it was taking, which left her feeling ignored
5. focused too much on the resident’s reluctance to engage as an aggravating factor rather than the investigations it could conduct
6. did not highlight any service failures, offer any redress, or identify any learning to prevent a recurrence
An order has been made to pay the resident £200 compensation to reflect the impact, distress and inconvenience to the resident because of the failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

The complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy states:
1. first time reports of noise or ASB will not be logged as a formal complaint
2. it will log and acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
3. it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days, both from the acknowledgement date
4. if at any stage additional time is needed, it will explain this to the resident and will not exceed a further 10-working days
Our complaint handling code (the Code) states landlords should:
1. recognise when a resident expresses dissatisfaction and must give them the choice to make complaint
2. acknowledge, define, and log stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
3. 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
4. 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 (20 working days for stage 2 complaints) without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident
The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports on 4 January 2025. The landlord said it was not logging the complaint as there had been no service failure. It said a complaint would manage the handling of the case but in this instance it could help her through its ASB process. The resident had clearly stated she was unhappy with the handling of the ASB, therefore it should have logged a complaint as requested by the resident. The landlord’s response was not appropriate and not in line with the Code.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 January 2025 to advise she was referring her complaint to us. The landlord logged and acknowledged the complaint on 15 January 2025 and advised it would respond within the next 20-working days. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the timescales in the landlord’s policy or the Code for a stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 January 2025, however the resident escalated her complaint on 23 January 2025. The landlord did not acknowledge it until 13 March 2025, and provided its final complaint response on 21 March 2025, 41 days after the request was made. The landlord’s responses at both stages of the process were delayed. This was not appropriate as they were not in line with policy or the Code.
The landlord’s response at both stages of the complaint process focused on the lack of engagement from the resident, and how this had impacted its ability to investigate the ASB reported. It said it had acted accordingly but did not provide any further detail to support this. As the resident said she felt ignored and the landlord had not acted on her reports, it would have been helpful to include what actions and investigations it had done and what it could not do without her cooperation. This may have helped reassure her she was not being ignored and helped set her expectations.
The landlord confirmed it did not provide soundproofing and confirmed its contact with flat A and the support offered to him. Considering data protection, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise what it did, but not to provide any further information. It referred to the additional issues raised by the resident and provided its position on each. It apologised to the resident for her feeling it had not supported her and confirmed the wellbeing team would contact her to discuss if further support could be offered. The landlord offered to meet the resident in a location of her choosing so it could move forward with the case. This was reasonable as it showed it wanted to help and support the resident and allow it to follow its policy.
The landlord acknowledged its stage 1 complaint response did not cover all the points raised and the distress and inconvenienced caused. It offered £25 for the inadequate response, and £25 for the distress and inconvenience. The landlord did not however acknowledge the delays in the complaint responses at either stage of the complaint. The compensation offered was therefore not appropriate. As such a finding of service failure is appropriate.
In line with our remedies guidance, an order has been made to pay the resident and additional £50. This is for a failure of minimal short duration where the landlord had made an offer of compensation that is not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. written a letter of apology to the resident which addresses the failures highlighted in this report
2. paid the resident a total of £300, broken down as follows:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s handling of ASB
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the delays in the landlord’s complaint responses
  3. 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
  4. 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 within the timeframe given
3. contacted the resident and her SW to:
  1. obtain an update on any issues that may be ongoing and to agree a plan as to what action it can take to help provide a resolution
  2. complete a risk and vulnerability assessment (if necessary) to ensure any support needed is provided
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide evidence it has:
1. taken learning from the failures highlighted with the handling of the ASB so it can improve its services in future cases
2. identified learning to prevent a recurrence of such failures with its handling of the complaint to ensure it complies with its policy in future cases

Recommendations

The landlord should consider contacting the resident and her SW to discuss housing options with her and provide support if needed.