The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Peabody Trust (202127637)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127637

Peabody Trust

28 March 2024

 

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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. The landlord’s refusal to purchase the resident’s property.
  2. The Ombudsman has decided to also investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as a leaseholder since May 2000. The property is a first floor 1-bedroom flat. The landlord owns the freehold.
  2. On 6 April 2021 the resident reported incidents involving neighbours that had occurred over the previous weekend. The landlord acknowledged the reports as a complaint and sent a response on 27 April 2021. In its response, the landlord said it had passed the reported incidents to the antisocial behaviour (ASB) Team, who would contact the resident. It said it had not dealt with the reports as a complaint as they had not been investigated by the ASB Team.
  3. Records show the landlord carried out an assessment of the reports on 28 April 2021, and noted they were mainly about car exhaust fumes. When the landlord visited the resident on 6 May 2021, she raised concerns about cars outside her window. She also said there was drug dealing at the flats. The landlord said it would write to the neighbour about parking. It agreed to look at whether it could paint road markings to restrict parking. It also provided the resident with diary log sheets to record incidents. The resident said she would not report the drug taking to the police. She told the landlord she wanted to move. The landlord advised the resident that because she was a leaseholder, it could not help with a house move.
  4. On 21 June and 7 July 2021, the resident told the landlord there was drug dealing and she was unable to open windows because of fumes and noise from car engines. She said she would not contact the police about drug dealing as it was the landlord’s responsibility.
  5. The landlord responded on 7 July 2021, and said it was trying to sort out the parking issues. It said it needed clear evidence and police involvement to take tenancy action on drug use. It encouraged the resident to report drug use to the police. The resident responded on 2 August 2021 and said the landlord was abdicating its responsibility for drug dealing and was putting onus on her. She said she wanted a response to her previous complaint.
  6. The resident reported an incident on 26 December 2021, when she said she was woken up at 5.40am by her front door being kicked in. She wanted the landlord to cover the cost of the damage caused. The resident said the landlord was in breach of the lease as she could not live “securely and peaceably” in her home. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 December 2021, and said it would arrange for a manager to contact her. It said she was responsible for repair costs and her reports of ASB were unlikely to give grounds to end the neighbour’s tenancy. In February 2022, the resident requested a community trigger.
  7. On 20 June 2022, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord, as the resident had not received a response to the complaint made in August 2021. The resident told the Ombudsman the landlord was aware of her vulnerabilities, and she did not feel this has been taken into consideration. She wanted the landlord to acknowledge failings over its handling of ASB and allow her to install an additional door for security. She also wanted the landlord to buy back her property at market value and compensate her for the impact of the ASB.
  8. In its stage 1 response on 1 July 2022, the landlord said there was no evidence of wrongdoing by the alleged perpetrator and the resident had not reported drug dealing to the police as advised. It said following the community trigger meeting, it took part in a door knock, which identified no complaints about ASB. It said it had carried out site visits, spoken to other residents and the alleged perpetrator, given out diary sheets, met with the police and council, and put up ‘no car idle’ signs. It said it would not buy the resident’s property.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 July 2022. She said the response was long overdue and had not addressed her historic reports of ASB. In its final response, on 17 August 2022, the landlord said it could not investigate historic reports as it had undergone a merger and there had been changes to policies, process, and systems. It did not accept that it had failed to manage ASB reports and repeated it would not buy the property. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered £50 compensation.
  10. When the resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman, she said the landlord should have investigated her historic reports. She also said the landlord had not investigated drug dealing and had not listened to her. She said she was not kept informed and the ASB had a significant detrimental effect on her health and wellbeing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told the Ombudsman that she had reported incidents of ASB over many years. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which is normally within 6 months.
  2. As the landlord first dealt with a report of ASB as a complaint in April 2021, the Ombudsman will investigate the landlord’s actions from that time until it issued a final response on 17 August 2022. However, the Ombudsman has noted that the resident continued to raise reports of ASB and will consider the landlord’s response to these reports.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that ASB cases involving allegations, sometimes with little or no corroborating evidence, can be the most difficult for a landlord to resolve.
  2. In addition, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether ASB took place. It is the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the landlord followed its policy and acted reasonably in the circumstances. For example, when a report was received, did the landlord assess the report, did it offer support to the resident, and did it work with other agencies?
  3. The landlord has a clear responsibility to deal with reports of ASB in line with legislation and its policy and procedure. In line with the Crime and Policing Act 2014, the landlord’s policy defines ASB as actions that cause, or are likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress, or annoyance. The policy also sets out what the landlord does not consider to be ASB. This includes low level disagreements between neighbours where there is no breach of tenancy, everyday noise, and one-off parties or gatherings.
  4. The landlord’s ASB policy says it aims to prevent and minimise the amount of ASB, ensure it takes a victim-centred and robust approach, ensure it targets support to the most severe cases and high-need residents, and ensure all residents are treated in a fair and equitable manner.
  5. The ASB procedure says effective case management underpins how the landlord will deal with reports of ASB. When a report is made, it will be assessed using a triage process and the resident will be assessed for vulnerability. Once a case is allocated to a case manager, contact will be made with the resident within 1 working day, and a visit within 5 working days. The case manager will agree an action plan, complete a risk assessment, and obtain further information.
  6. The Ombudsman has noted that when the resident reported ASB to the landlord on 6 April 2021, the landlord incorrectly dealt with the report as a complaint. This meant the landlord did not follow its ASB procedure. The reported ASB should have been immediately assessed by the landlord and a meeting arranged with the resident. Instead, it took 3 weeks to assess the reported ASB and a meeting did not take place with the resident until a month after the report had been made. The Ombudsman has found the landlord failed to follow its ASB procedure when the report was made, and this was service failure by the landlord. Because of this, the landlord should review how reports of ASB are initially processed to ensure they are acted on in a timely manner.
  7. Records provided by the landlord show that it initially decided the reported ASB did not require a risk assessment, as the case related to car exhaust fumes. However, when it visited the resident on 6 May 2021, she expressed concerns about drug dealing at the block of flats. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord recorded that the resident was upset about the situation but has seen no evidence that the landlord reassessed the case following the meeting with the resident. The landlord was aware that the resident was living alone and had vulnerabilities. It is the Ombudsman’s view that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out a risk assessment at this stage.
  8. The landlord acted reasonably by issuing the resident with diary log sheets, as it would require evidence of ASB to take further action. It also said it would look at what action it could take on parking, and in its final response said it erected signage in June 2021. However, records show the resident chased the landlord for an update on 21 June and 7 July 2021. She also told the landlord on both occasions that there had been further ASB incidents, including drug dealing.
  9. The ASB procedure says effective case management underpins how it will deal with reports of ASB. Following the initial visit on 6 May 2021, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of communication from the landlord until it responded to the resident’s second email on 7 July 2021. This was 2 months after it visited the resident and following the resident chasing the landlord twice for an update. The Ombudsman has found that the failure to update the resident between 6 May and 7 July 2021, was a service failure.
  10. When the resident reported drug use in 2021, the landlord reasonably advised the resident that it needed evidence and asked her to provide it. The landlord was correct when it said it could not act against another resident’s tenancy without strong evidence, as it would need to be presented at court. Records show that the resident did not want to provide evidence, and said it was the landlord’s responsibility. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord could not be reasonably expected to gather evidence. This is because it has limited powers and resources when responding to reports of drug use. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord considered options on how to engage with other agencies and residents about the allegations of drug dealing. There is no evidence that it considered whether the reluctance of the resident related to her vulnerability, and whether there were ways to support her. It is the Ombudsman’s view that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider these issues and develop a plan to investigate the resident’s concerns. The lack of consideration of these issues was a service failure by the landlord.
  11. As part of her complaint, the resident asked the landlord to cover the costs of damage to her door, which occurred during an incident on 26 December 2021. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord was correct to advise the resident that she was responsible for the repairs. This is because as the leaseholder, the resident was responsible for keeping in repair the demised premises, including doors and door frames.
  12. The Ombudsman has noted that when the landlord spoke with the resident after the incident on 26 December 2021, it said it would do all it could to support her. However, it is unclear from the records what actions the landlord then immediately took. In addition, there is no evidence that it supported the resident with an insurance claim for the damaged door, and no evidence it carried out a risk assessment following an escalation in the type of incident reported.
  13. When the resident spoke to the landlord on 29 December 2021, she said the landlord was to blame for damaged door. She said this was because it had refused her previous request to put an outer door on the short corridor leading to her flat. The resident told the Ombudsman that she wanted to install a second door to improve security in her home. She also said the landlord had refused permission because it said the short corridor was not part of her property. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord told the resident on 29 December 2021, that it would review the lease agreement to check whether it was possible for the resident to install a second door. The Ombudsman has seen a copy of the lease agreement, which clearly marks out the demised property. The lease agreement shows a rectangular outline, which appears to include the short corridor. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should review the request made by the resident, considering the boundary marked in the lease agreement.
  14. On 23 February 2022, the resident requested a community trigger. Records show that the local authority coordinated the response and arranged a meeting with the landlord and police. The resident says she was not informed about the meeting. Although the local authority was responsible for the management and handling of the community trigger, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with an update on the outcome and any actions. However, the resident could have contacted the local authority, who were ultimately responsible for the community trigger process.
  15. The landlord told the resident in its first complaint response that the community trigger meeting in March 2022 had shown “little to no reports of ASB, and any reports were sporadic and often not deemed ‘ASB’, for example dog barking”. As a result of the community trigger, the landlord said it took part in activities with the police and local authority in May 2022. On 25 May 2022, the landlord sent a letter to all residents reminding them about drug use, and on 31 May 2022, a community action day was held with residents. The landlord said no significant ASB was raised, except by the resident. The Ombudsman has found that, based on the community trigger’s findings of low levels of ASB, the landlord’s actions were proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances.
  16. In its final response on 17 August 2022, the landlord referred to reports of ASB the resident had made before April 2021. It said it would not investigate these as they were historic, and due to changes caused by mergers, there were different policies, process, and systems in place at that time. The Ombudsman agrees that it would not be reasonable to respond to historic reports of ASB as part of its complaint response. However, the Ombudsman would expect landlords to make robust arrangements to ensure they retain access to tenancy and property records, as well as communications with residents when they are involved in mergers and acquisitions.
  17. The landlord said in its final response that the resident wanted the neighbour to be evicted. The landlord was clear in its ASB policy and communications with the resident that it only took possession as a last resort, where there was evidence of persistent breaches of tenancy, which would enable a court to grant possession. The Ombudsman has noted the landlord and police were not provided with evidence of drug use and the community trigger found no evidence. The Ombudsman agrees the landlord’s approach to taking possession action was correct, and the landlord would need strong evidence before initiating such action. It is clear from the records that the resident was not willing to provide evidence, which made it difficult for the landlord to act. Furthermore, the landlord did write to all residents about drug use, which was proportionate in the circumstances. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found the landlord was reasonable in not acting against the neighbour.
  18. Taking everything into account, the Ombudsman has found there was service failure when the resident first reported ASB. The landlord dealt with the report in April 2021 as a complaint, which delayed its response. There are also gaps in communication, which meant the resident had to chase the landlord. In addition, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should have carried out a risk assessment and considered the resident’s vulnerability when matters escalated in December 2021. The landlord did not consider whether the resident’s vulnerability affected her willingness to report drug taking and did not consider other actions until after the community trigger.
  19. In mitigation, many of the reports were classed as low level or not ASB. It is clear the landlord tried to manage expectations and encouraged the resident to provide evidence. The landlord is also limited in the powers and resources it has available to investigate drug taking. However, there was service failure as the landlord did not follow its ASB policy and procedure. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, service failure is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found a minor failure. In this case there were several failures, and the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £200.
  20. The Ombudsman has noted that the resident has continued to report ASB to the landlord and there has been a further community trigger. The resident has told the Ombudsman about the serious effect the ASB is having on her health and wellbeing, and the enjoyment of her home. This is supported by medical professionals. The resident is aware that as a leaseholder, the options available to her are limited. She has expressed a desire to move from the property and has said she needs assistance with moving. The resident has vulnerabilities, and the landlord also has a duty of care. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord discuss what options are available and how it can support the resident.

The landlord’s refusal to purchase the resident’s property

  1. The resident asked the landlord to buy her property from her in April 2021 because of the alleged ASB. At the time the landlord said it would not do this, and if the resident wished to move she would need to put the property on the open market.
  2. When the resident complained that the landlord had refused to buy her property, the landlord said in its complaint response on 1 July 2021, that it would not buy the property from her.
  3. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s stated position is reasonable, as it is under no obligation to buy the property. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found there was no maladministration when the landlord refused to purchase the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will provide a response within 10 working days. When the resident is dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, it will send a final response within 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. When the resident reported ASB on 4 April 2021, the landlord acknowledged the report as a complaint the same day. It responded 16 working days later, on 27 April 2021, and said it was dealing with the reported ASB as a service request. The Ombudsman agrees that it was reasonable for the landlord to deal with the reported ASB as a service request, as the issues reported had not been investigated. However, the landlord had set expectations that it would deal with the report as a complaint, and then did not meet the response timescales in its complaints policy. In addition, this mix-up in process led to a delay in responding to the report of ASB. The Ombudsman has found that this was a service failure.
  3. On 2 August 2021, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the way the landlord was handling her reports of ASB. Although the landlord continued to engage with the resident about her reports of ASB, there is no evidence that the landlord treated the resident’s email on 2 August 2021 as a complaint. The Ombudsman has found that this was a failure to follow its complaints policy and was maladministration by the landlord.
  4. On 20 June 2022, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord about the lack of a complaint response, and the landlord sent its first response on 1 July 2022. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 July 2022, and the landlord sent its final response on 17 August 2022. It acknowledged the delay in responding and offered £50 compensation.
  5. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord did not follow its complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code. The original report of ASB was dealt with incorrectly as a complaint and then not dealt with within timescales. When the resident raised a complaint again in August 2021, the landlord did not respond. The landlord only responded after the Ombudsman’s involvement in June 2022. Although the landlord offered £50 in its final response, it is the Ombudsman’s view that this is insufficient in the circumstances. The failure to follow its complaints policy was maladministration. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, maladministration is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found a significant failure. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £150 for the failure to follow its complaints policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of ASB.
    2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its refusal to purchase the resident’s property.
    3. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £350 in compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £200 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to follow its ASB policy and procedure.
    2. £150 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to respond to complaints in line with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code.
  3. The landlord is ordered to review how it dealt with the reports of ASB, paying attention to how reports of ASB are initially processed to ensure they are acted on in a timely manner, how it communicated with the resident, and how it carried out risk assessments when circumstances changed, especially with vulnerable residents. The landlord should inform the Ombudsman of any corrective action it intends to implement.
  4. The landlord is ordered to confirm to the Ombudsman that the above orders have been complied with within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reviews the resident’s request to fit an additional door, considering the boundary marked in the lease agreement.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord discuss the housing options available and how it can support the resident with her expressed wish to move.