Peabody Trust (202313506)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313506

Peabody Trust

27 June 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Fly-tipping in the communal garden.
   3. An authorised shed in the communal space.
   4. Pests.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord, living in a 2 bedroom flat.
4. On 3 May 2023, the resident reported noise nuisance from the property above her own to the landlord. The landlord requested that she fill out diary sheets for 2 weeks to catalogue the nuisance, and to provide it with any audio recording she had.
5. On 9 June 2023, the resident told the landlord that an “illegal structure”, specifically, a shed, had been built in the communal garden and that it was allowing rodents into her property. She also explained that the communal garden was no longer being treated as communal due to evidence of fly tipping. On 19 June 2023, she contacted the landlord again to explain she had raised a formal complaint about these issues.
6. On 24 July 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said that in order to open an ASB case, it needed diary sheets from her, and needed to speak to her to carry out a risk assessment. It also said that it would investigate the fly tipping, shed, and pest problems.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 28 July 2023. On 2 October 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said that since its stage 1 response, it had arranged for rubbish in the communal area to be removed, and taken pictures of the shed. It also said that its neighbourhood team would reach out to her to carry out a risk assessment, which needed to be done before it could open an ASB case. Lastly, it explained that it would keep her updated on the situation with the shed, apologised for the impact the situation had on the resident and her child, apologised for its delays in responding to her complaint, and offered her £250 in compensation for its complaint handling failures.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and brought it to this Service. On 9 May 2024, in its response to this Service’s information request, the landlord confirmed that rubbish from the communal area had been removed, and that it continued to inspect the area. It also confirmed that its recent inspection in January 2024 identified no evidence of pests, and that it had “attempted to liaise with the owners of the shed.”

Assessment and findings

Anti-social behaviour (ASB)

9. The landlord’s ASB policy says that “all [residents] who wish to report an incident of ASB will be assessed for their risk and vulnerability to ensure the appropriate level of support can be provided and any safeguarding issues are identified.” The policy also says that it will respond to reports of ASB within 2 working days.
10. For noise nuisance in particular, the policy says that it “may consider it appropriate to take a tenancy management approach to remind residents of their responsibilities or take other preventative action. If the behaviour continues and [the landlord] can evidence that it is ASB [it] may investigate.” The policy also says that for the landlord to take action against a perpetrator of ASB, it “requires sufficient supporting evidence that the behaviour is causing significant nuisance and/or harm to others and has occurred over a prolonged amount of time.” If the landlord identifies statutory noise nuisance, then both it and “the local authority’s environmental health department may be able to take formal action against the perpetrator.”
11. According to the landlord’s records, the resident contacted it by phone on 3 May 2023 to report ongoing noise disturbance from the flat above her own. She also said she had been recording evidence on the “noise” app since February 2023. In response, the landlord asked her to keep diary sheets for 2 weeks to log the incidents, and asked her to send it the sheets plus any recordings she had. It was reasonable for the landlord to request this information, because as per its own ASB policy, it required sufficient supporting evidence of ASB behaviour. However, it does not appear to have asked for any of the information recorded by the resident via the noise app. It is unclear why, as this would have provided it with information on the issues the resident said she had been experiencing.
12. In addition, as per its ASB policy, when the resident contacted it to report ASB in May 2023, it should have carried out a risk and vulnerability assessment on the resident, which it did not do. In its stage 1 response to the resident in July 2023, the landlord told the resident it needed to speak to her to “carry out a risk assessment.” This again confirms that a risk assessment was not carried out by the landlord when the resident reported ASB to it, by phone, in May 2023.
13. Additionally, in its stage 2 response to the resident in October 2023, it confirmed that it had asked one of its teams to contact her to carry out a risk assessment. Furthermore, in its file submission to this Service in May 2024, the landlord confirmed no risk assessment had been carried out.
14. While there were some delays in communication between the landlord and the resident while she was recovering from an operation, the delays were minimal, and had no real impact on the landlord’s ability to carry out a risk assessment, as it should have done. In its complaint responses, the landlord told the resident it had followed its ASB policy, but this is demonstrably not the case. The resident first reported ASB in May 2023, and as of May 2024, no risk assessment had been carried out. This is especially concerning given that the landlord acknowledged within its stage one response on 24 July 2023 that both the resident and her son reported being scared of living in the property. In November 2023 and December 2023, the resident provided diary sheets as requested, but nothing further took place. A member of the landlord’s neighbourhood team did visit her downstairs neighbour in November 2023, but that appears to have been for a recent and separate issue at the time, not the ongoing noise issues she had reported about her upstairs neighbour.
15. In light of the above, it appears that the landlord overlooked a number of opportunities to demonstrate to the resident that it was taking her reports of ASB seriously. While its requests for diary sheets were reasonable, its failure to carry out a risk assessment in line with its own policy, was not. There is no mention in the policy of diary sheets being needed before this can take place, and no record of the landlord trying to carry out this assessment between the resident first contacting it on 3 May 2023, and raising her formal complaint on 19 June 2023. The landlord also failed to carry out the assessment within a year, which is an unreasonable amount of time for no safeguarding concerns to be addressed, given she had raised concerns about both her and her child’s wellbeing due to noise nuisance. Further, it is unclear what, if any, action the landlord took following its receipt of diary sheets from the resident.
16. To recognise this, the landlord has been ordered below to pay the resident £200 in compensation. This is in line with its own compensation policy for service failures, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which a landlord has not attempted to put right.
17. The landlord has also been ordered to contact the resident and carry out a risk and vulnerability assessment, and confirm what actions it has taken following receipt of her diary sheets, if it has not already done so.

Fly tipping

18. The lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the common parts of the property.
19. The landlord’s estate management policy is that it will clear rubbish in communal areas within 5 working days.
20. The resident first reported fly-tipping in the communal garden to the landlord on 9 June 2023. Subsequently, on 14 June 2023, the landlord asked its waste management team to clear any rubbish. However, no action seems to have been taken until August 2023, after the landlord sent a second request to its team. This means it took the landlord almost 3 months to clear the rubbish, outside of its own policies timescales. As a result, the resident was left with the inconvenience of the rubbish in a communal space for an extensive period of time. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations during this time or explained why it had taken so long to have this matter resolved. It therefore could have approached this better.
21. Given the length of time that the resident would not have been able to enjoy the communal space as a result of the landlord’s delay, the landlord has been ordered to award the resident £50. This is in line with its compensation policy for what can be deemed a minor disruption, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for delays in getting matters resolved.

Construction in a communal space

22. The lease agreement states that residents cannot “make any alterations or additions to the exterior of the Premises…nor in any way to interfere with the outside of the Premises…”
23. The landlord’s leasehold alteration policy states that “leaseholders may be able to make alterations to their home with [its] written permission.”
24. The resident told the landlord on 9 June 2023 that a shed had been constructed in the communal area under her kitchen window. In response, it said it would visit the resident’s block before 28 July 2023 to investigate the issue. On 9 August 2023, it told her it was “liaising” with the sheds owner and would update her with any progress. On 2 October 2023, it told her again that it would keep her updated on the issue. On 9 May 2024, it told this Service that its neighbourhood manager had “attempted to liaise with the owner.”
25. Upon being informed of the structure by the resident, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide a response and outline its position on the matter within a reasonable timeframe.
26. Given the information included in the resident’s lease agreement and alteration policy, it is unlikely that her neighbour had permission from the landlord to build the shed. They would have first needed to contact it in writing, and it appears the landlord was not aware of the structure until the resident reported it.  Furthermore, the landlord has provided no information to the resident on how quickly it contacted the neighbour to discuss the issue following her report, or if it took any reasonable steps to assess whether the structure met the building compliance requirements. While it did make some attempt to manage the resident’s expectations, it gave her no expected timeframe for a resolution, causing her unnecessary frustration and distress.
27. Given the resident’s concerns about the condition of the shed and the suggestion that this was being used by rodents to enter her property, it would have been good of the landlord to have kept her updated on whether the shed would be removed or whether it had gained permission to remain in place. The resident then could have discussed her options with the landlord. It appears, however, that the landlord only advised the resident it would take this matter forward without ever sharing its findings. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was a failure in service.
28. To recognise this, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50. This is in line with its own compensation policy, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failures that a landlord has not appropriately acknowledged or put right. It has also been ordered to provide the resident with an update on the situation, including what actions it has taken, and a timeline for next steps going forward.

Pest infestation

29. The landlord’s pest control policy sets out its approach to controlling pest infestations in its residents homes and communal areas. It states that the policy covers social housing tenants that live in its properties, leaseholders, and shared owners.
30. For pests inside the home, the policy says that it will assess infestations of rats and mice. It also says that it will deal with pest infestations found in communal parts.
31. Additionally, the policy says that for infestation caused by a residents lifestyle, it will recover any costs of treatment through its recharge policy for shared ownership leaseholders.
32. On 9 June 2023, as mentioned above, the resident told the landlord that the shed that had been built under her kitchen window was allowing “rats and rodents” access to her kitchen and bedroom. However, in its stage 1 response to the resident on 24 July 2023, the landlord told her that it first heard about the issue on 23 June 2023.
33. This was inaccurate according to its own records, and it is concerning that the landlord was unaware of this. It also said she had given it no information on the type of vermin, when she had. Further, it told her that it was unable to have pest control attend her property because she was a leaseholder, and so would need to arrange her own treatment for inside. However, as per its pest control policy, it could have assessed whether an infestation existed and if necessary, recharged the resident if her lifestyle was found to be the cause. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s response lacked empathy and did not demonstrate a desire to support the resident in resolving this issue.
34. In the same response, the landlord told the resident it could arrange an assessment of the communal space. It is not clear when this was done, or how it assessed this. In May 2024, however, it told this Service that it had carried out an inspection in January 2024 which did not find any evidence of pets. It is unclear whether the landlord shared this update with the resident too.
35. A review of the landlord’s approach to this matter demonstrates that there are improvements to be made to the way it approaches reports of pests from leaseholders. While it appears that the landlord did follow this matter up, it seems to have done so in January 2024, several months after the resident reported the issue. This was unreasonable. It is unclear why the landlord took this long to arrange an inspection of the communal space. There is also no evidence that the landlord returned to the resident to share its findings. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that there was a failure in service. To account for this, an order of £50 has been made below and a recommendation for the landlord to review its record-keeping process.

Complaint handling

36. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to residents, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
37. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it operates a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. These timescales are in accordance with the CHC.
38. The resident raised her complaint on 19 June 2023. In accordance with its policy, the landlord should have subsequently issued its stage 2 response on 3 July 2023. The CHC states that any delays in providing a complaint response must not exceed an additional 10 working days without good reason.
39. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 24 July 2023, however; 25 working days after the resident raised her complaint, and after it was asked to respond by this Service. This is outside the 10 working day response timescale outlined within the CHC and the landlord’s complaint policy. Despite the delay being more than double the expected time, the landlord failed to recognise this in its complaint response.
40. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 July 2023. In accordance with its policy, the landlord should have issued its stage 2 response on 25 August 2023. However, its stage 2 was issued on 2 October 2023; 46 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This was despite the landlord writing to the resident on 8 September 2023 to advise it needed a further 10 working days to respond, and would share a response by 23 September 2023. This was inappropriate.
41. In the landlord’s complaint response, however, it recognised that it had not managed the complaint appropriately and made an offer of £250. This was reasonable. While it appears that this offer was only to recognise its handling of matters at stage 2, in the Ombudsman’s view, the amount offered was sufficient to put right its failings at both stages of the complaint process. As such, it has been concluded that the landlord made an offer of redress, prior to our investigation, which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Determination

42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of ASB.
43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of fly-tipping in the communal space.
    2. The resident’s reports of an authorised shed in the communal space.
    3. The resident’s reports of pests.

43. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

44. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £350 in compensation. This is broken down into:
    1. £200 for its handling of ASB
    2. £50 for its handling of fly-tipping.
    3. £50 for its handling of the resident’s reports of an authorised shed in the communal space.
    4. £50 for pest control.
45. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident to carry out a risk and vulnerability assessment and to confirm the actions it has taken following receipt of her diary sheets if it has not already done so.
46. The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with an update on the construction in the communal garden, including what actions it has taken to resolve the issue if any, and any next steps.
47. The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with the results of any pest control assessments it has carried out if it has not already done so.
48. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of the above, within 4 weeks of receiving this report.

Recommendations

49. The landlord should ensure that it also pays the resident the £250 offered to recognise its handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord should review its record-keeping process, to ensure that staff have access to full contact histories with its residents.