Peabody Trust (202114643)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114643

Peabody Trust

21 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 handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance from a neighbour.
   2. Repair to a leak in the resident’s property.
2. This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a second floor flat.
4. The resident’s property had been subject to several leaks from the neighbouring property above during 2020 – 2021. He had complained to his landlord about anti-social behaviour (ASB) from neighbours in his block.

Anti-Social Behaviour

5. On 3 March 2020, the resident made a report of loud music being played from his neighbour from 1am and explained this was a regular occurrence. Following this, the landlord contacted the neighbour, however she told them she had been working from 7pm until 6am and no one else was at her property. The landlord informed the resident of this and said that it would send letters out to residents about this incident.
6. During May 2020, police attended the resident’s property in response to an alleged report of child abuse. It was found that the allegations made were false as the resident does not have a child.
7. On 19 May 2020, the landlord addressed the issues with ongoing ASB in relation to loud music being played at loud levels. It said it would write to all residents about the level of noise and ask them to report this if they are also being impacted. The landlord proceeded to issue letters to residents on the block about the noise disturbances.
8. Following this, during September 2020 the resident had reported further noise disturbances in regards to noise nuisance, however when the landlord had listen to the recording it was unable to hear this. In response to the resident’s complaints about noise during the day, the landlord explained that this would not be considered as ASB as it is not in unsociable hours. The landlord also explained that it had contacted all other residents to find out if they were experiencing similar issues, but no one had reported this. The landlord had contacted the police to investigate alleged calls about the resident, however it was found that these had been made from a public phone and they were unable to identify the perpetrator. The landlord further explained that it was unable to do anything further until it received information indicating noise nuisance of an antisocial nature. The landlord requested the resident complete diary incident sheets over the next four weeks for it to review.
9. On 27 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about the ongoing ASB and was upset that it had sent him a closure letter. He stated that this should be escalated to a hate crime, as he had been experiencing the following issues for an extended period of time:

1. Drilling.
2. Music.
3. Parties.
4. Banging.
5. False accusations.
6. Emergency service turning up at his home.
7. False deliveries arriving at his door.
8. Evidence from a subject access request showed his neighbour made allegations of serious child abuse and domestic abuse.

10. The resident also expressed that the landlord’s method of sending letters to residents would not resolve the matter and it needed to be doing more.
11. The resident called the landlord on 13 January 2021 to report further noise disturbances that night. He also raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. Following this, the landlord provided its stage one response on 26 January 2021. It explained that reports against his neighbours were dealt with in accordance with its ASB policy. It explained for on-going complaints residents are asked to keep a diary sheet, perpetrators are interviewed, and mediation is offered. The landlord explained that it is within its remit to choose to invoke any options that are available to it in order to help fully investigate and resolve matters of ASB. This may include evicting the alleged perpetrator. However it explained that any actions taken require evidence of ASB and it cannot rely on one neighbour’s word against the other. In such cases where there is little evidence, residents are asked to speak with the neighbour about the incident and mediate, which had previously been done in this case.
12. The landlord acknowledged the incident which occurred in May 2020, where police visited the resident’s property about alleged abuse to a child, however explained that the police had confirmed the calls were anonymous.
13. The landlord explained the resident had dealt with several neighbourhood managers in regard to the ongoing ASB, who had all reached similar conclusions. The following methods have previously been explored for the resident:
    1. Keep diary sheets.
    2. Mediation was considered and offered to both parties. However this was not something the neighbours were happy to commit to, given the allegations were disputed and counter complaints.
    3. The resident was asked to use the noise app to record instances of loud noises. However no resulting noises could not be heard.
    4. Letters were sent to all residents in the block to establish if other residents also experienced issues.
    5. Wardens patrolled regularly at varying times of the day/evening and did not witness ASB.
    6. Housing options were explained to the resident.
    7. Several neighbourhood managers have conducted investigations and spoken to neighbours but had been unable to substantiate claims made.
14. Overall the landlord stated it was unable to identify hate crimes.
15. On 4 March 2021 the resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on 4 April 2021 and stated that it would aim to respond by 16 April 2021. Following this, on 22 April 2021 the landlord contacted the resident apologising for the delays and stated that it would aim to respond to the resident by 5 May 2021. Subsequently, on 20 May 2021 the landlord stated that it would aim to provide a response to the resident on 27 May 2021.
16. The landlord issued its stage two response on 27 May 2021. It acknowledged the resident was unhappy with how it handled his reports of ASB and believed this should have been handled as a hate crime instead of ASB. The landlord acknowledged how the ongoing issue had affected the resident’s mental health and wellbeing. It also explained that in line with its policy, it did not consider incidents which occurred more than six months before being complained about.
17. The landlord explained that, after reviewing its system notes, it showed reported issues with two neighbours regarding noise nuisances. On reviewing this it stated that the correct procedure was applied as this was deemed as ASB. The landlord did not identify the residents reports as a hate crime. The landlord acknowledged the resident felt the ASB was a result of his ethnicity, but explained it would need to have evidence of this in order to progress with any enforcement action. The landlord also explained that, under normal circumstances, the neighbourhood team would have attended to see if the noise the resident reported could be heard, however their visits were suspended under the landlord’s pandemic response programme due to covid- 19.
18. In response to the resident’s concerns regarding his subject access request, the landlord explained this had been raised with the relevant team that deals with data protection and he would need to discuss this with them directly.
19. In respect of complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged there was service failure in the management of his complaint after his request to escalate it to stage 2. In recognition of this, the landlord awarded the resident £100 compensation.
20. On 22 July 2021 a Member of Parliament wrote to the landlord on behalf of the resident about the issues being experienced.
21. Following this, on 9 August 2021, the landlord responded explaining that this was a longstanding case, where records appear to have started back in 2015.  It acknowledged the resident believed this was a hate crime and did not feel the landlord had applied its hate crime policy when his reports were being investigated.
22. The landlord explained that under normal circumstance the neighbourhood team would have been able to attend to see if noise could be heard. However visits were suspended under its pandemic response programme set up to manage Covid-19.  The landlord explained that wardens patrolled at varying times of the day and in the evening and were instructed to pay attention to the flats of the alleged perpetrators. However no incidents of loud noises such as drilling, shouting or music were witnessed.
23. The landlord acknowledged that during the pandemic the resident would have experienced a degree of noise transference, as residents were at home more due to restrictions.
24. The landlord also explained that its neighbourhood team followed procedures by contacting neighbours regarding the allegations. However it had no evidence from other residents to substantiate the claims.
25. During September 2021 the resident made further complaints of ASB in relation to noise nuisance. Following this, the landlord responded to the resident to inform him that the new noise would be investigated in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy. The landlord explained it had listened to the recordings submitted through the noise app but could not hear any loud background noises. It also explained that drilling on a Sunday afternoon is not considered ASB.
26. The landlord explained that if the resident was being disturbed by DIY work he should first speak to his neighbour as they might be able to do work when he was not at home. Or he could contact his local Environmental Health team or speak to the landlord’s customer service team to seek advice on what is reasonable.  The landlord explained that other parts of the resident’s reports had already been addressed in its stage two response.
27. On 5 October 2021, the landlord sent a further letter to all residents about receiving complaints about excessive loud noise in the block during unsociable hours. It asked residents to get in touch if they were also being disturbed by these incidents.

Leaks within the residents property

28. The resident explained that in January 2020 and February 2020, a plumber had knocked on his door and visited his property in an effort to investigate leaks within the neighbouring property, however the resident states this was to no avail.
29. On 18 May 2020, the resident experienced a leak in the property, and this was reported to the landlord. The resident states that when contractors attended his property he was informed that the leak had been resolved.
30. On 19 May 2020, the landlord spoke with the resident in regards to the recent leak, the landlord informed him it would arrange a replaster when the property was dry. He was also informed to get in touch if the leak returned. The resident expressed he was unhappy as he had been reporting issues with hearing dripping water for over a year, and nothing was done about this, he believed this resulted in the flooding.
31. On 1 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that he had experienced a third leak within his property which was coming through the ceiling. He explained that he had called the emergency plumber for the fifth time that year.
32. The resident informed the landlord of a list of all the individuals who had been made aware of the water damage and floods to his property. This included:
    1. Surveyor.
    2. Contractors managing director.
    3. Contractors divisions manager.
    4. Housing officer.
    5. Customer care line representatives.
33. The resident explained that he was constantly having to chase emails, calls, and meetings in an effort to resolve issues concerning the leaks. He expressed that this had impacted him negatively.
34. In the landlord’s stage two response dated 27 May 2021, it explained that it had checked its repairs history and stated that the records show the resident had made a complaint in 2020 which was managed at stage one of its complaint process. The landlord explained that when locating leaks the process can be protracted and in some cases challenging to diagnose. The landlord also addressed the resident’s feeling that the housing officer did not take his concerns seriously when he informed her of dripping noises prior to the leaks. The landlord apologised to the resident in regards to feeling that he was not treated empathetically. It also explained that as the neighbourhoods team do not manage repairs, he should contact the Customer Hub if there were any further issues regarding leaks as they would raise works directly to the repairs team
35. During July 2021, the resident reported a further leak in his property. An operative attended, but found that the leak was not down to repairs, but human error and had been caused when the resident above was using the bath/shower. The landlord arranged a further appointment for contractors to visit the property.
36. The resident wrote to the landlord to explain that following his reports on 1 August 2020 about leaks within the property, to date he had experienced another three leaks within his property, which required emergency plumbing services. These were on the following days:
    1. 2 May 2021.
    2. 7 June 2021.
    3. 23 June 2021.
37. The resident expressed that he was appalled that he was in this continued situation, despite being told the property above him had been investigated twice. He explained it was causing damage to his walls containing asbestos.
38. In response the landlord discussed the issues with the resident. It agreed that it would start with asbestos removal. The landlord said it would also check to ensure there were no further leaks.

Assessment and findings

39. This service notes the resident states issues concerning ASB have been ongoing from 2015 to when he raised the complaint to the landlord. This service has noted this as context, however will not look back into historic issues reported. This is because the Ombudsman will not generally consider complaints about matters that were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of time from the matter arising. This would usually be within six months. This service has considered the most recent incidents of ASB which are relevant to the landlord’s formal responses.
40. In the landlord’s submission to this service it had noted that the repairs resulting from the leaks were still ongoing and were being managed as a stage one complaint under a separate reference. This service understands the resident experienced leaks after the stage two response dated 27 May 2021 was issued. However, whilst these are noted below the Ombudsman has not investigated these later occurrences as they would need to be considered by the landlord under its complaints procedure first, and we would need to allow the landlord to exhaust its complaints procedure.

How the landlord has handled the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance from a neighbour.

41. A landlord has two main duties when anti-social behaviour is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the anti-social behaviour. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
42. Additionally, matters where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the ASB policy ensures that a landlord is acting fairly, its response is proportionate to the issues being raised, and that its approach is consistent, even if it does not lead to the outcome requested by the resident.
43. The landlord’s ASB policy states that the type of behaviours it considers to be antisocial include:
    1. Physical violence, such as attacks on a person.
    2. Hate crime. (the landlords definition is not stated in this policy)
    3. Perpetrators of domestic abuse.
    4. Verbal abuse, harassment, intimidation or threatening behaviour;
    5. Criminal behaviour or activity.
    6. Substance misuse, cultivating drugs or drug dealing.
    7. Repeated prolonged high-level noise nuisance.
    8. Loitering or misuse of communal areas or public spaces.
    9. Nuisance from vehicles (e.g. joy riding, drag racing, loud music, excessive noise nuisance vehicle repairs).
    10. Pets and animal nuisance.
    11. Prostitution, sexual offences or kerb crawling.
    12. Vandalism and damage to property, including hate related graffiti.
44. In this instance the resident had made repeated reports regarding his neighbours about drilling, loud music, parties, banging, false accusations etc. In accordance with the landlord’s policy, these would be classified as ASB and therefore the landlord was required to investigate the issue when reported.
45. The evidence shows that there has been repeat efforts by the landlord in order to tackle the issues. This has involved housing officers intervening and investigating the matter, the landlord also offered mediation however it was not accepted by the neighbour, therefore mediation did not transpire. The evidence shows that the landlord also suggested the resident keep diary sheets, in an effort to log incidences and for the landlord to review. The landlord has also asked the resident to use a noise app to record incidences, however found that this did not provide evidence of noise disturbances. When the resident had reported noise disturbances to the landlord it also proceeded to send letters to all residents of the block, in an effort to see if any other residents were experiencing similar incidences and to remind residents of their conduct. This service has seen the landlord had also arranged for wardens to report any ASB when patrolling the area.
46. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that there is a high threshold of evidence required to pursue formal tenancy action regarding ASB. The landlord’s ASB policy notes that it will use a range of preventative measures, early intervention and legal action to tackle ASB. This includes the full range of tools and powers available to it as outlined in the ASB, Policing and Crime Act 2014. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord suggested the use of methods above in order to investigate matters further.
47. This service notes that, despite these measures being put in place, the landlord did not find sufficient evidence to support the resident’s claims of ASB.
48. In regards to the particular incident regarding calls made to the police about child abuse in the resident’s home, the landlord explained that after consulting with police officers it was found that these calls had been made from an anonymous phone and therefore they were unable to identify who made the reports. This service has not seen any evidence to show who was responsible for the calls.
49. This service has considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB. Whilst the Ombudsman recognises that the resident has experienced distress as a result of the ongoing ASB, which the landlord has also acknowledged, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports, has appropriately advised where possible what steps it has taken, and has appropriately advised, that should issues reoccur, the resident should report this.
50. This service understands that the resident was unhappy that the landlord was not pursuing matters further in regards to his neighbour, or referencing it as a hate crime. In response the landlord had felt that it had acted in accordance to its policy and exhausted matters based on the information it had to hand.
51. Whilst this service recognises the resident feels there was service failing by the landlord in not referring his reports as a hate crime, this service has seen that the landlord considered the resident’s allegations, investigated matters and taken action in accordance with the correct policy.  Therefore the Ombudsman is satisfied there was a service failing by the landlord.  

The landlord’s handling of reports to repair a leak in the resident’s property.

52. This service notes there have been ongoing reports of issues concerning leaks that have affected the resident’s property. It is understood that the resident was unhappy with the housing officer’s handling of his reports of a leak. He expressed he did not feel his reports were taken seriously and, had the matter been investigated when he reported dripping noises to the housing officer, this may have prevented two serious leaks which he says occurred in 2020.
53. This service notes the resident expressed that he had communicated issues to multiple individuals, including the landlord, contractors, housing officer and other parties.
54. In response the landlord apologised to the resident for feeling like his concerns were overlooked. It also acknowledged that the resident was making reports of the issue to the housing officer and apologised, but it explained the housing officer is not responsible for repairs, so should issues reoccur in future the resident should ensure he is reporting his issues to its customer hub.
55. On reviewing the landlord’s policies for reporting a repair, it states that repairs can be reported in a variety of ways. These include via webform, self-service portal, phone and email. Whilst this service recognises the resident was unhappy with the housing officer’s response to reported leaks, we have to recognise at times this was not reported in the correct way.
56. This service has reviewed the landlord’s repairs history and can see when recent leaks were reported during April and May 2020, operatives had attended the property in regards to leaks stemming from the neighbouring property above. In the Ombudsman’s view in these instances the landlord was proactive in attempting to investigate the leak, as it had arranged for an operative to attend within a reasonable period of time.
57. As set out earlier in this report, the Ombudsman notes that there have been further reports of leaks since the landlord’s final complaint response in May 2021. Based on the evidence available the Ombudsman can not conclusively state that the leaks were related, in addition these matters have not exhausted the landlord’s own complaints procedure. For these reasons, the Ombudsman has not considered matters after May 2021, but has made a recommendation at the end of this report that the landlord should carry out a further inspection to assess the current position and take any further action needed.

The landlord’s complaint handling

58. Section 5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out what is expected of landlords when responding to residents’ complaints. It explains that a two stage complaint procedure is ideal. In this instance the landlord has two complaint stages.
59. When the resident reported his complaint on 13 January 2021 the landlord responded on 26 January 2021. The evidence shows the resident had asked for the complaint to be escalated on 4 March 2021. On 9 April 2021, the landlord stated that it would be in a position to provide the resident with a full response by 16 April 2021, however this was not done. The resident was then informed this would be provided by 5 May 2021, however this was also missed. Following this on 20 May 2021, the landlord apologised for the delays explaining this was due to a backlog of cases and stated that it would aim to provide a response by 27 May 2021. Subsequently the landlord provided the resident with its stage two response on 27 May 2021
60. In accordance to the landlord’s complaints procedure, it states for stage one it will aim to resolve complaints within 10 working days. For stage two it will aim to acknowledge this within three working days and then provide the resident with confirmation of the date a final response should be expected.
61. Given the facts, it is clear that the landlord did not act in accordance with its timeframes and was delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint.
62. This service notes the landlord acknowledged its service failing, apologised to the resident and considered its compensation policy. The landlord offered £100 compensation to the resident.
63. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was correct to apply its compensation policy for the resident. In accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy for poor complaint handling it offers a maximum of £100 compensation. This service acknowledges that the delay caused an inconvenience and upset to the resident, but has not seen any evidence to suggest the resident was impacted further as a result of the delay, therefore it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount offered was fair and reasonable.

Determination (decision)

64. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance from a neighbour.
65. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of a leak in the property.
66. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

67. This service is unable to agree that the landlord should have categorised the resident’s reported ASB as a hate crime as we have not seen evidence to suggest this. Furthermore the landlord has been proactive and put several measures in place in an attempt to resolve matters of ASB. Whilst it is clear that the resident has been distressed by the concerns he has reported, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s actions have been proportionate and appropriate to the issues being raised.
68. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of leaks, although it is noted that the resident did not initially report his concerns in the appropriate way. Its actions were proportionate to the issues reported.
69. There were service failings by the landlord in its complaints handling. The landlord apologised to the resident and appropriately applied its compensation policy.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

70. The landlord to carry out a further inspection to ensure any issues concerning the leak are resolved and make further repairs where necessary. The landlord should ensure this inspection is carried out within four weeks from the date of this report.
71. Ensure the Noise Application status is up to date which currently states “Pending Review”. Correspond with the resident should there be any additional information which has not been corresponded in the landlord’s stage 2 response.