Peabody Trust 2018 (202002309)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002309

Peabody Trust 2018

5 February 2021

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 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 residents’ complaint is about the landlord’s response to:

1. Their reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), including the residents’ complaint regarding the alleged perpetrator’s garden; and
2. The handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The residents occupy the property as assured tenants.
3. They describe themselves as being disabled.

Policies and Procedures

4. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it will work in partnership with residents, local authorities and other external agencies to tackle ASB and provide support to those with vulnerabilities. It will use a number of preventative measures proportionate to the seriousness, impact and frequency of the behaviour, the level of risk and evidence available to support each case. Residents are encouraged and expected to take responsibility for solving personal disputes where appropriate, including by collating evidence, liaising with other agencies and taking part in mediation.
5. Residents can expect responses to stage one complaints within 10 working days and to stage two within 15 working days of acknowledgement.
6. The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation may be paid to residents where they have experienced a delay in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Summary of events

7. The residents have stated that the alleged perpetrator has been engaging “on and off” in ASB since the residents moved in in 2009, and that the most recent episode began in February 2020. Several reports have been made to the landlord. The actions reported included abusive language, threats of violence, repetitive noise and loud music. The residents have also made reports to the police, local council and local MP.
8. On 20 April 2020, the residents contacted the landlord to make a complaint about its handling of their ASB report on 30 March 2020 (a copy of which this Service has not seen). This Service has not seen a copy of a written complaint, but the residents are reported to have complained that the landlord lacked empathy towards them, had not taken their concerns seriously and had told them to “get on with it.”
9. A stage one response was provided to the residents on 27 April. It stated that “there is insufficient evidence to support your allegations of anti-social behaviour to warrant taking eviction/ possession action as you have requested.” It stated that landlord had acted in line with its ASB policy and reasonably and proportionately in relation to the reported incidents. It stated that the landlord staff member had denied saying they should “get on with it” or that “there are other people who need more help than you.” It had interviewed other residents and liaised with police, who believed both parties to have been “equally culpable for the incident.” It explained that warnings were issued to both parties on the basis of this. The landlord offered mediation.    
10. The residents contacted the landlord on 29 April 2020 expressing their dissatisfaction with the stage one response, as it did not address the three elements of their complaint satisfactorily – a “garden issue with neighbour, the ASB noise issue” and a complaint against staff members. The “garden issue” appears to refer to the alleged perpetrator maintaining a separate garden.
11. The landlord stated that its response would not comment on staff issues, which would instead be managed internally. File notes refer to the noise as “daily living noise” and to the fact that the residents had refused mediation.   
12. Further reports of ASB were made by the residents on 17 May due to the “escalating harassment”. The police had reportedly been called, but no charges were brought against the alleged perpetrator.
13. On 9 June the landlord corresponded with the residents about the ongoing ASB. It stated that all harassment/ abuse must be reported both to the police and to itself. It also confirmed that the local council was responsible for taking further action on noise which reached a certain threshold, and that it was responsible to investigate and take appropriate action under the tenancy agreement. It enclosed diary sheets to the residents to log times and dates when noise occured.
14. The landlord wrote again to the residents on 10 June to update them that it had corresponded with the local MP and Safer Neighbourhoods Team in advance of a Priority Move Panel to obtain statements in support of their priority move application.
15. The landlord’s stage two response was sent to the residents on 11 June. It confirmed that the noise evidence provided did not amount to excessive noise nuisance. It also stated that the landlord staff member complained of was following ASB procedure both generally and in issuing warning letters both to the residents and the alleged perpetrator, because each party had made allegations about the other. This was stated to have been supported in an independent assessment of the landlord’s actions by a Community Safety Officer (though this Service has not seen a copy of this assessment’s findings). The response confirmed that the landlord was unable to take further action in respect of the division of the garden as the alleged perpetrator was within his rights to request it remains separated. In light of the delay in provision of the stage two response, it offered £25 compensation.
16. The residents responded to the landlord’s stage two response stating they were “astonished” by it. They stated that despite the fact that landlord staff had heard the noise recorded by the noise app, it had “refused to approve them.” According to the residents, the alleged perpetrator had “come at (the residents) with a meat cleaver on a Sunday night at 9:10pm (and) punched (the residents) four times in the face, keyed (his) car (and) destroyed a perfectly good garden.” The residents stated they did not feel safe in their home. They sought escalation of their complaint to stage three.
17. The landlord wrote to the residents on 25 June reiterating that an application for a priority move was being prepared. It confirmed that it did not have a stage three within its internal procedure but that the residents could bring their complaint to this Service if they remained dissatisfied.
18. The residents continued to report ASB throughout June and July. The reports made reference to threats of violence, abusive language and noise.
19. The landlord confirmed on 16 July that it was in the process of identifying a suitable alternative property for the residents and that, due to their medical needs, it was seeking a ground floor property and this could take longer than usual.
20. The residents wrote to the landlord on 18 July with a “weekly report” as suggested by the landlord. The report detailed more noise and abusive hand gestures. The residents describe “5 months’ continuous abuse”.
21. The residents received a written warning from the police regarding behaviour which had been counter-alleged by the alleged perpetrator. The residents dispute that they committed any crimes.
22. Noise monitoring equipment was installed at the residents’ property on 7 August.
23. In an email to the residents on 11 August, the landlord stated that no evidence had been provided in support of the ASB allegations and therefore it could not take enforcement action against the alleged perpetrator. It stated that the noise monitoring equipment would be in place for one week to capture any noise but that, if no noise nuisance was detected, the ASB noise case would be closed due to a lack of evidence. It reiterated that there were no suitable alternative ground floor properties available at that time but that once one became available, it would be offered to them.
24. The landlord emailed the residents on 18 August reiterating that it was waiting on the findings of the recordings from the noise machine and was monitoring the situation in relation to suitable alternative accommodation. It stated that the residents could consider mutual exchange in the meantime if they wished.
25. The residents have since confirmed that they have now moved into a new property.
26. They remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Handling of ASB

27. The landlord acted in accordance with its policy in seeking to obtain evidence of the ASB by providing noise monitoring equipment, a noise app and requesting weekly diary sheets from the residents. It worked in partnership with local agencies and the police, who did not take any action against the alleged perpetrator. When it concluded that the available evidence was not robust enough to justify enforcement action against the alleged perpetrator’s tenancy, it made an application on the residents’ behalf for a priority move and also advised on other options for moving including mutual exchange. The lack of robust evidence is not to say that the reported ASB was not occurring, just that in order to take enforcement action against a resident’s tenancy, the evidence must be such that it would meet the required legal standard of proof and seriousness.
28. The landlord investigated and addressed the residents’ complaint about its staff member, who denied saying the comments complained of. They took action in accordance with the ASB policy and issued warnings appropriately. The landlord also dealt appropriately with the garden issue.

Complaints handling

29. The residents requested escalation of their complaint on 29 April and were not provided with a stage 2 response until 11 June. This is far in excess of the landlord’s 15 working day target, but the landlord accepted this and offered compensation in line with its policy. Its stage two response comprehensively addressed the residents’ complaints.
30. Accordingly, whilst there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints response, this Service considers that it offered reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB.
32. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for the failings in its complaints handling.

Reasons

33. The landlord took steps in accordance with its ASB policy and in accordance with the available evidence. When action against the alleged perpetrator or his tenancy was not appropriate, the landlord arranged an application for a priority move for the residents.
34. The landlord accepted that it had demonstrated service failure in its complaints handling. It offered compensation in line with its policy in redress for this.