Peabody Trust (202120604)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120604

Peabody Trust

23 February 2023

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:
   1. response to the resident’s request for information regarding its contractor’s reports;
   2. response to the resident’s request for information regarding her neighbour’s reports;
   3. complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a flat and has another flat above it. At the time of the complaint, the resident’s neighbour was in the process of moving into the flat above.
3. Between 7 and 18 October 2021, the resident reported noise transference from the property above and requested for the landlord to install flooring underlay during its voids works to mitigate this noise.
4. On 19 October 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and requested for her not to have any further contact with its contractors carrying out works in the property above. This was due to reports from its contractor that she had been “impolite.”
5. The landlord also noted it had received a report from the resident’s neighbour that a visitor to the resident’s property had approached them regarding noise transference. The landlord subsequently requested the for resident not to have any further contact with the neighbour “to avoid any further conflict.” The landlord further advised that should the resident have any concerns she should contact it directly.
6. The resident emailed the landlord on three occasions between 20 October and 12 November 2021 and sought information on which contractor complained about her and whether the neighbour was aware she had been requested not to interact with them. The landlord replied on 15 November 2021 and requested further information as to whether she was disputing the reports made by the contractor. It also explained its reasoning for asking her not to contact the neighbour.
7. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 15 November 2021. She subsequently sought the intervention of this service on 8 December 2021 to raise a stage one complaint. She advised she wanted:
   1. details of the contractor who had made a complaint about her;
   2. details of the contractor’s complaint;
   3. confirmation as to whether her neighbour had been informed she was not to contact them.
8. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 13 December 2021. It advised it had received reports from the neighbour that the resident was approaching the contractors while they were working and there were “a number of issues.” It noted it had then advised both parties not to approach each other in order to prevent further conflict.
9. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint and the landlord provided its final response on 17 February 2022, which included the following:
   1. Regarding the contractors, it noted it had only received informal reports from the contractor that the resident had declined access while they were carrying out guttering works and that one staff member had made a comment that the resident had been “rude.” It confirmed it had not received a formal complaint and apologised for its miscommunication that there had been a ‘complaint’.
   2. Regarding her neighbour, the landlord confirmed that the resident’s reports regarding sound transference had been discussed with them, and that the neighbour had since installed carpeting to address this. It advised that in line with its data protection obligations, it was unable to disclose the precise information discussed with the neighbour.
   3. Regarding its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged the response had not been clear in its outcome or on the landlord’s position. It therefore offered compensation of £30 for the resident’s time and trouble, and £50 for its poor complaints handling.
10. In response to further contact from the resident, the landlord emailed her on 14 April 2022 to reiterate the findings of its final complaint response.
11. In referring the complaint to this service, the resident advised she continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted:
    1. details of the “impolite conduct” reported by the contractor and who reported it;
    2. a retraction of the above if no details could be provided;
    3. to know when the neighbour was advised the resident should not contact them, and if this was in writing;
    4. the landlord to confirm to the neighbour that she had never raised a complaint about them;
    5. the landlord to apologise to the resident and the neighbour for “misrepresenting” her.

Assessment and findings

Contractor’s reports

12. Part of a landlord’s service delivery includes managing the relationships between its tenants, and with its staff. The landlord has various tools in which to approach this, including using steps under its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy, using contact restrictions, or using a more informal approach.
13. Throughout the course of the complaint, the landlord’s communications regarding the nature of the contractor’s reports was not consistent. The landlord initially advised the resident in October 2021 that it had received “a complaint” of “impolite conduct” from the resident towards its contractors. In its stage one response, however, the landlord advised the reports had come from the neighbour. In its final response, the landlord then clarified the reports had been made by the contractor, but apologised for having previously referred to them as a ‘complaint’.
14. The Ombudsman notes there is a clear distinction between an informal report and a formal complaint. Given that the landlord initially advised the resident there had been a complaint, this would have understandably caused distress for the resident. Additionally, the landlord’s advice that the reports had come from the neighbour would have added to the resident’s distress and confusions. It is not evident, however, that the landlord’s initial use of the word ‘complaint’ was intended to convey that a formal complaint had been raised, or that a formal investigation into the report had occurred, and it is unfortunate this word was used instead of report. It was appropriate, therefore that the landlord apologised for this confusion in its stage two response and clarified that no formal complaint had been made.
15. Had a formal complaint been made by the contractor, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to investigate the complaint, which may include taking statements from the parties and from any witnesses. Given, however, that no formal complaint was actually made, and that the landlord had only received an informal report, it was reasonable that it did not conduct such an investigation at this stage, which it appropriately informed the resident of in its stage two response.
16. The Ombudsman notes that the resident had requested specifics of exactly which contractor had made the report, however, the Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to disclose this information due to its data protection obligations, and it was sufficient that it advised it had received a report.
17. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident had requested specific examples of her behaviour. Where a landlord puts in place formal contact restrictions relating to a tenant’s behaviour, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide clear examples of the behaviour it was seeking to manage, and provide an avenue for the tenant to request a review of its decision. In this case, however, the landlord did not put formal contact restrictions in place, but instead informally requested that the parties have no further contact. Its intention was to avoid any potential conflict, and not to punish any party or allege that the reported behaviour had conclusively occurred. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not provide any specifics about the reported behaviour, as it had not carried out a formal investigation.
18. The Ombudsman understands it would be frustrating for the resident to be referred to as “rude” when she did not consider her actions to have been rude. In this case, however, the landlord had not stated that it considered this to have been the case, but that this had been the opinion of a contractor. Its subsequent requests that the parties limit contact was reasonable to manage the situation, and in line with what the Ombudsman considers best practice.
19. As noted above, however, its initial complaint response caused confusion for the resident, which caused her to expend time and trouble chasing a further response. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this impact on the resident, for which it apologised and offered £30 compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Neighbour’s reports

20. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as “conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.” It was reasonable, therefore, for the landlord to consider the report of noise transference from the neighbour’s property as potential ASB and for it to discuss these reports with the parties.
21. As with above, given that there was dispute between the resident and the neighbour about interactions between their households/visitors regarding noise transference, it was a reasonable step by the landlord to manage this situation informally in the first instance by requesting that the resident and neighbour did not approach one another. Once again, the landlord had not yet had reason to complete any formal investigation, and its request regarding limiting contact was proportionate in the circumstances.
22. One element of the resident’s complaint was that she wanted to know if the neighbour had been informed she had been requested not to contact them. The landlord’s stage one response did not directly address this; instead it explained how it had reached the decision to make its request. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that it had not explicitly addressed the resident’s question and subsequently confirmed that it could not disclose information it had discussed with another resident, in line with data protection obligations. The Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to disclose to either party the specifics of conversations it had with other parties, and so this approach was reasonable in the circumstances. While it would have been useful for it to have clarified this earlier, its use of its formal complaint response was reasonable to set out this position.
23. The Ombudsman notes that the resident would like the landlord to make it clear she had not made any complaint against the neighbour. Given, however, that this service has not received evidence that the landlord has made such an assertion to the neighbour, it would not be expected to make such a communication to the neighbour, as this may cause confusion.

Complaints handling

24. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. Its website states that complaints at stage one should be acknowledged within five working days, and it should provide a response within ten working days. At the final stage the landlord should provide its final response within 20 working days. These timeframes mirror those specified in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which member landlords are required to adhere to.
25. The resident raised her stage one complaint with the landlord on 15 November 2021, but there was no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the complaint. When she did not receive a response to her complaint she requested for this service to intervene on 8 December 2021. Following contact from this service, the landlord issued its stage one response to her on 13 December 2021. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s initial complaint led to an unreasonable delay in the resident receiving a resolution to her concerns.
26. Additionally, the resident escalated her complaint on 17 December 2021 and the landlord did not provide its final stage complaint response to her until 17 February 2022, after 41 working days. It is not evident that the landlord updated her during this period as to why there was a delay until two days before its final response. Once again, this would have caused frustration for the resident, and was an unreasonable delay in the circumstances.
27. The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its stage two response that there had been failings with its stage one complaint handling, for which it apologised and offered £50 compensation. The landlord did not address the delays to its stage two response, however, or address compensation. Furthermore, the landlord caused confusion in its stage two response by advising it was offering a total of £75 compensation, whereas the total compensation offered previously was actually £80.
28. While the initial offer of £50 was proportional to the impact caused by its initial delay, the further delays represent additional service failure, for which a further £50 compensation is appropriate in the circumstance to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its response to the resident’s request for information regarding its contractor’s reports.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint regarding its response to the resident’s request for information regarding her neighbour’s reports.
31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders

32. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its ineffective complaints handling.
33. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £50. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.