Peabody Trust (201907372)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201907372

Peabody Trust

22 December 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat within a converted house. Another flat is situated above the resident’s property.

Scope of investigation

Although it is noted that the resident reports a long history of being affected by ASB and noise nuisance, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from early 2022 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords promptly so that 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 that occurred.

Summary of events

On 2 February 2022 the landlord opened a new ASB case file having received contact from the resident on 30 January 2022 who reported the following incidents caused by her neighbour:
1. Loud music.
2. Banging noises.
3. Arguing and shouting.
4. Cannabis being smoked.
5. Rubbish being dumped in the communal areas.
6. The resident asked the landlord to install soundproofing between the properties.
The landlord advised the resident to report any cannabis use to the police and it provided her with diary sheets to complete should there be any further incidents. It also advised the resident that due to the costs involved, it would not be installing soundproofing. The resident was also advised to contact the local authority’s noise team and to report any fly-tipping to the landlord’s customer hub.
On the same date (2 February 2022) the landlord made a telephone call to the resident’s neighbour and discussed the allegations made. The landlord’s records state that the neighbour said she did not play music after 11pm. She denied the allegation of cannabis being smoked in the property. She did however admit that her son smoked cannabis, but away from the property. She stated that she would write a letter to the resident asking her to knock on the door whenever there was any issue. She further stated that she has a right to play music in her home and have her grandchildren visit.
On 3 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that her neighbour had reacted badly after the landlord’s contact the previous day. The resident stated:
1. Her neighbour had posted 2 notes through her door in which she was trying to justify or deny the alleged incidents.
2. Her neighbour had been shouting abuse at her from the communal area of the building and was aggressive and using foul language including “she doesn’t know what f**king aggressive is”
3. The landlord advised the resident to note the incident on her diary sheets.
4. It stated that it would not investigate any incidents where children were playing or where music was playing “not in antisocial hours”
5. It further advised the resident that she should perhaps consider looking to move to another property as it may not be able to take any action against the incidents she was reporting.
The landlord’s records confirm that it closed the resident’s ASB case file on 11 February 2022. It stated that several attempts to contact the resident had been unsuccessful and the case was closed due to not receiving a response. A case closure letter was sent to the resident that same day.
The resident contacted the landlord’s out-of-hours service on 7 July 2022 to report ongoing noise nuisance from her neighbour’s property. The landlord provided the resident with incident diary sheets and requested copies of any audio recordings she may have of the incidents. On 22 July 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord as she was unhappy with its handling of her ASB case and its poor communications with her.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 15 August 2022 in which it stated:
1. It had reviewed the resident’s completed diary sheets and asked her to provide copies of any audio recordings she had of the noise nuisance incidents.
2. It had respected the resident’s wishes by not contacting her neighbour before discussing it with her, relating to the recent incidents. It stated that when the neighbour was contacted, the resident was not named as the person making the reports.
3. It had spoken to the neighbour about rubbish being left in the garden area outside the resident’s bedroom window. It apologised for not communicating this to her earlier. It stated that in future the member of staff handling her case would be in regular contact with her.
4. It would not install soundproofing at the resident’s property. It would need audio recordings to support taking this step. It stated that if the neighbour had installed laminate flooring, then it would install noise monitoring equipment to capture evidence and to provide a report. If the noise monitoring equipment captured evidence of “consistent, excessive and out of hours” noise then it would consider installing underlay and carpet in the neighbour’s property.
5. It also advised that she could contact the local authority’s environmental health team who could provide an independent assessment of the noise which may determine if the property was not adequately insulated against noise.
6. It advised that the resident did not meet the threshold for an urgent move to another property. It stated that she may wish to explore other options through its rehousing team.
7. It stated that it felt there had not been any serious mismanagement of her case.
8. It offered to make a support referral on her behalf.
During email exchanges with the landlord on 15 and 16 August 2022, the resident outlined that she was unhappy with its stage 1 complaint response and requested that her complaint be escalated. The landlord told the resident that it needed audio recordings of any noise nuisance before it would escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. It advised the resident to use the noise app or to make her own recordings on her mobile and to send them via WhatsApp. It would then review the recordings. It also stated that it had issued her neighbour with a formal warning regarding the rubbish left in the communal garden. It apologised that a new member of staff had issued the warning but had not informed the resident of this.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 August 2022 and asked how it would review her complaint, and when it would do this. On 30 August 2022, the landlord responded and stated that it would provide its stage 2 response by 20 September 2022. It confirmed that its response would review the noise nuisance and littering concerns the resident had reported.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 7 October 2022. It stated:
1. It apologised for the delay in providing its response.
2. Its complaints policy did not allow it to investigate matters which had occurred more than 6 months before the complaint was made. It acknowledged that the resident had experienced a noise nuisance for some time.
3. It confirmed that an ASB case file was opened on 2 February 2022 and was closed on 11 February 2022. It had written to the resident to advise of this. The resident has advised that she never received this letter and was not aware that the landlord had closed her case.
4. It had opened a further ASB case file on 7 July 2022 having received completed incident diaries from the resident.
5. It had provided the resident with an action plan regarding the newly opened ASB case.
6. It had issued the resident’s neighbour with a formal warning regarding the dumping of rubbish. It had also sent letters to all residents in the block to remind them of their duties to not litter and leave personal items in the communal areas.
7. It asked the resident to use a noise monitoring mobile phone app to gather evidence of any further noise nuisance. It advised the resident to also contact the local authority’s noise team. It also recommended that noise monitoring equipment could be used. It stated that it needed further evidence to support taking further action against the neighbour.
8. Its community safety team had carried out an audit of the resident’s ASB case and found that it had followed its procedures listed in its ASB policy.
9. It acknowledged the supporting medical information the resident had provided but stated that it could not comment on medical issues. It suggested that the resident contact its rehousing team should she wish to be rehoused.
10. It offered the resident £150 in compensation for the following reasons:
  1. £100 Complaint handling – Delays in providing both the stage 1 and 2 responses.
  2. £50 Lack of communication – due to not always updating the resident about actions taken promptly.

Post complaints process

The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she continues to be affected by noise nuisance and ASB from her neighbour. It is noted that she has made further formal complaints to the landlord about its handling of these matters, however the landlord’s later complaint responses are not covered within the scope of this report.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes

This Ombudsman will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s ASB policy outlines how it will address ASB and noise nuisance within its communities. It states that all residents who report ASB will be assessed for their risk and vulnerability to ensure the appropriate level of support can be provided. It will agree an action plan with complainants and witnesses and keep them informed of any action taken. It also outlines that it will close a case under the following circumstances:
1. It is successfully resolved.
2. There are no further reports for a period of 6 weeks (unless it has begun legal action or is gathering further evidence) or earlier if agreed with the complainant.
3. No further action can be taken.
The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure outlines that it has two complaint stages:
1. It will acknowledge a resident’s formal request to log a complaint within 3 working days and provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days.
2. It also confirms that if a resident requests an escalation to stage 2 of its process, it will acknowledge this within 3 working days. it will then provide a full response to stage 2 complaints within 15 working days of an escalation request. It also lists the level of detail it will include in its stage one and stage 2 complaint responses.
3. The landlord’s compensation policy details that it will make compensation payments when a resident has experienced a delay or incurred costs because of a service failure on its part; or if it has failed to carry out a service within its published guidelines.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

With regards to the ASB case file opened and closed by the landlord in February 2022, there is no evidence to show that it agreed an action plan with the resident. The resident would therefore have been unsure what action the landlord was proposing to take. This is evidenced by the resident being surprised by her neighbour becoming aggressive towards her following contact from the landlord. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to put the allegations to the neighbour at the earliest opportunity, it didn’t tell the resident that it was going to do this. The neighbour reacted badly after the landlord’s contact as reported by the resident. The landlord did not follow its ASB policy by agreeing an action plan with the resident.
There is no evidence that the landlord assessed risk and vulnerability with the resident. It did however offer her a support referral which was a reasonable step and in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord closed the resident’s ASB case file on 11 Feb 2022, only 9 days after opening it. Despite asking the resident to complete incident diary sheets and to gather further evidence of the reported incidents, it did not allow sufficient time for her to do so. This approach also did not give the landlord sufficient time to carry out any meaningful investigation into the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance. The landlord’s records show that on the date it opened the ASB case file, it had already assessed the reports as not being ASB. There is no evidence to show that it discussed this with the resident. The landlord’s decision to still ask the resident to complete incident diaries was therefore meaningless as it had already decided that her reports did not amount to ASB. Also, the resident was not aware for some time that her ASB case had been closed. The landlord states that it made several calls unsuccessful calls to the resident before closing her case, but there is no evidence that it tried other methods such as text messages or emails.
It was clear that the situation with the neighbour escalated to verbal abuse and aggressive behaviour following the landlord contacting the neighbour via phone on 2 February 2022. The landlord’s advice to the resident was to suggest that she consider moving elsewhere. The landlord should have looked into this incident in more detail, given that the resident reported her neighbour as being aggressive and threatening. There is no evidence to show that the landlord had correctly assessed this incident as being more serious than the resident’s initial reports of noise nuisance. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it “will refer all crime, including threats or acts of violence, to the police”. There is no evidence to show that it did this. Despite this incident, the landlord still swiftly closed the ASB case file. There is no evidence to show that it discussed this incident with the neighbour, which would have been a reasonable step for it to take. These actions are significant failings in the landlord’s approaches in handling the reported ASB.
The landlord could have considered the use of CCTV and/or noise monitoring systems to capture supporting evidence, however there is no evidence to show that it considered this during the 9 days the ASB case file was open. Also, there is no evidence to show that as part of its investigations, the landlord made enquiries with other local residents to see if they were affected by the alleged nuisance. These steps would have enabled the landlord to be satisfied that the issues reported were, or were not ASB.

Complaint handling

It is noted that the landlord apologised for its delays in providing complaint responses at both stages of its complaints process. It took 17 working days to provide its stage 1 response and 37 working days to provide its stage 2 response. This is outside of the 10 and 15 working day respective response times listed in its complaints policy. It offered the resident £100 compensation in relation to its complaint handling failures.
It is further noted that when requesting an escalation of her complaint to stage 2, the resident was informed by the landlord that it would not do so unless she provided audio recordings of the reported noise nuisance. There is no information in the landlord’s ASB policy or complaints policy to support this position. The Ombudsman therefore finds that the landlord’s actions in this regard delayed the resident being able to complete its internal complaints procedure, which is unacceptable.
In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds that the £100 compensation offered to the resident for its complaint handling failings is insufficient.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord must, no later than 31 January 2024:
1. Pay the resident a total of £700 in compensation which is comprised of the following:
  1. £150 as offered in its stage 2 complaint response dated 7 October 2022.
  2. A further £450 in compensation due to its failings in the handling of the resident’s antisocial behaviour case.
  3. A further £100 in compensation due to its complaint handling failings.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman.