Peabody Trust (202106461)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106461

Peabody Trust

23 October 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 the landlord’s handling and management of reports of antisocial behaviour, threats and nuisance including the posting of notes by a neighbour.
This report also looks at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Background

The resident lives in a 3rd-floor bedsit in a block owned and managed by the landlord. The property was let under an assured tenancy agreement in March 2000.
The landlord recognised the resident as vulnerable, but this Service has not seen any further information about her vulnerability.
The landlord operates a Tenant and Family Support Team (TFST) that offers support and advice to tenants and families at risk of losing their tenancy – or who need some extra support to manage their tenancy successfully. The TFST works in conjunction with other agencies and support is tailored to individual or family circumstances. A referral to the service was completed by the landlord so that an assessment of the resident’s support needs could be made.
The resident has been represented by a representative, in both her communication with the landlord and this Service.. The landlord has advised that the representative has described himself interchangeably as a support worker, advocate, and friend. It is unclear if emails sent to the landlord were sent from the resident, or the resident’s representative as the same email address was used for all communication. For clarity, this report refers to both the representative and the resident as the ‘resident’ interchangeably.

Relevant policies and procedures.

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy says:
1. All residents or customers 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 identified.
2. The landlord will work in partnership and consult with residents, as necessary to tackle ASB and provide support to those with vulnerabilities.
3. The landlord will use a range of preventative measures, early intervention, and legal action to tackle ASB.
4. The landlord will only investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or at unreasonable hours.
5. The landlord will refer all crime, including threats or acts of violence, to the police.
The landlord’s website contains details of its Safeguarding Adults Policy which sets out its approach to identifying, assessing, and recording residents’ vulnerabilities. It states that it will provide tailored services that meet residents’ needs where appropriate and that it will refer vulnerable residents to external support agencies.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy which says:
1. Only complaints regarding the handling of an existing ASB case by the landlord will be logged as a complaint.
2. Complaints can be made by any person acting on behalf of a resident (with their consent).
3. Stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days.
4. Stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation and remedies guidance policy says compensation payments and other remedies will be considered when a customer has experienced a delay, or if the landlord has failed to carry out a service within its published guidelines. To assess compensation the landlord considers:
1. The severity of the time, trouble and inconvenience suffered and whether the landlord could have avoided the situation.
2. Any household vulnerabilities, including age or disability, where the landlord was reasonably aware of these.
3. Whether the landlord had failed to follow policies and procedures.
The Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code says:
1. Under paragraph 1.7 a, landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so.
2. Under paragraph 4.1, when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage one of the complaints procedure within five days of receipt.
3. Under paragraph 5.1, landlords must respond to the stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
4. Under paragraph 5.3, landlords must respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days the complaint being escalated.
5. Under paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16, landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage 1 and 2 in clear plain language:
  1. The complaint stage.
  2. The complaint definition.
  3. The decision of the complaint.
  4. The reasons for any decisions made.
  5. Details of how to escalate the matter if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
6. Under paragraph 5.14, if an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.

Summary of events

The resident emailed the landlord and local authority noise team on 2 December 2020 to provide details of 3 ASB reports between 28 November and 1 December 2020. The reports related to loud music with pounding bass, regular deliberate hits/bangs/knocks, and noise pollution from noisy gatherings. The ASB was reported to have been coming from properties located above and below the resident’s property.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 December 2020 to advise it had received reports of ASB from an email address that was neither registered to the resident’s address, nor as a third party. The landlord advised it needed 2 weeks’ worth of diary sheets for it to verify the frequency of incidents of ASB and assess what action it could take. The landlord attached copies of the diary sheets to its return email.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 13 January 2021 to report ASB incidents. The email said:
1. The resident was subjected to a serious threat from the occupant of the property below when she heard a series of loud bangs on her floor and furious banging on her front door.
2. The resident did not answer the door, but a note was posted through her letterbox which contained ‘hate speech.’
3. There was no reason for the threat to have been made.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 11 April 2021. The resident said:
1. No action had been taken by estate managers about the consistent ASB that she had previously reported.
2. Local authority noise officers had handled noise reports made about music and parties, but the landlord had not subsequently taken any action.
3. A neighbour had verbally abused the resident.
4. On 13 and 15 January 2021 notes containing threats and ‘hate speech’ had been posted through her door.
5. Neighbouring properties had held social gatherings over the previous 12 months with loud music, but the landlord’s estate officers had not taken action.
6. Banging noises day and night caused the resident disturbance.
The landlord emailed the resident on 15 April 2021 to acknowledge her recent contact and requested a 2-week log of events.
On 19 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord a list of 16 ASB incidents that she had previously reported to the local authority noise team between 29 January 2021 and 11 April 2021. The resident said the list was provided instead of diary sheets and that copies of the threatening notes had been supplied previously. The email also reported noise nuisance from a neighbour who repeatedly struck a hard baton against a hard surface during night times, and some daytimes.
The landlord posted a letter to the resident dated 5 May 2021 to explain it had unsuccessfully tried to call her by phone and could not leave voicemail messages. The landlord said it needed a signed third-party consent form to communicate with her representative, which it enclosed with the letter. The landlord asked the resident to contact it and provide an up-to-date contact number. The landlord provided diary sheets and asked for them to be completed and returned. The landlord said if it did not hear from the resident by 14 May 2021 it would close the ASB case.
The landlord emailed the local authorities adult protection team on 10 May 2021 to advise it had unsuccessfully tried to make contact with the resident and to ask if the adult social care team had been able to assist the resident. The landlord said the resident had previously said she was distressed and feeling suicidal.
The resident’s representative sent an email to the landlord on 14 May 2021 which said:
1. The landlord’s letter dated 5 May 2021 had not been received until 12 May 2021.
2. The landlord had not provided sufficient time for the resident to respond to the landlord.
3. Previous correspondence failed to address the threatening notes the resident received in January, but instead asked a traumatised person to complete diary sheets rather than take remedial action.
4. This was a contravention to the landlord’s code of conduct.
5. Previous reports made to the local authority noise service should be reviewed.
6. ASB from loud music and social gatherings was continuing unchecked.
7. The resident had supplied forms, letters, and reports of ASB, but the landlord’s estate management team claimed to have no record of these.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 May 2021 confirming that the resident’s report had been added to the ASB case and forwarded to the neighbourhood manager who would contact the resident the next day.
The landlord posted a letter to the resident dated 20 May 2021 which said:
1. It had checked the reference numbers she provided with the noise team, but a system hack had prevented further information about the incidents being provided.
2. It had tried to phone her twice but could not leave messages as the phone numbers used were invalid.
3. The ASB case would be closed because the resident had not made contact, and diary sheets had not been provided as requested.
The resident reported thudding bass music from a neighbouring property to the local authority noise team twice on 4 August 2021. The local authority emailed the resident’s noise reports to the landlord on 5 August 2021.
The landlord made a referral to the Tenancy and Family Support Team (TFST) on an undisclosed date, but the TFTS case was opened on 5 August 2021.
The TFTS caseworker from the landlord tried to call the resident on 2 different phone numbers on 13 August 2021 but was unable to make contact with her. The TFTS caseworker posted an introduction letter to the resident.
The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 17 August 2021 to request an update on the resident’s open ASB case with advice on what action the resident could take.
The landlord replied to the MP on 2 September 2021 and said that the person named on the email address was not its tenant and that it was waiting for a third-party consent form to be provided before it could engage with emails from the associated email address. The landlord also said the resident had declined to provide a third-party consent form and refused to engage with the landlord herself. The landlord also said that a previous ASB case had been closed because the resident did not substantiate the allegations that had been made.
In a handover note dated 4 October 2021, a TFST caseworker suggested a newly assigned caseworker should complete a TFST assessment and check to see if the resident was known to mental health services. The resident’s new TFST caseworker subsequently emailed the landlord later the same day requesting any additional information about the resident to assist with her assessment. The caseworker also suggested completing a joint home visit.
The TFST caseworker tried to call the resident on 6 October 2021 but was unable to make contact and so sent a further introduction letter to the resident.
The resident texted the TFST caseworker on 7 October 2021 saying she had received the letter but had no knowledge of a former TFST caseworker and requested further information. The case worker called the resident but was unable to make contact. The caseworker replied to the resident’s text with information about her position and the purpose of the assessment. The caseworker said it was to establish if practical support could be provided whilst ASB investigations were ongoing due to the resident being a victim of ASB in the form of noise nuisance.
The resident texted the TFST caseworker on 12 October 2021 requesting information about the caseworker’s qualifications to undertake the assessment and its purpose. A further text was sent to the caseworker that stated “please don’t post same letter 4th time wasting resources. if a woman ask reasonable question professional to address it not bullying sided as objects. Since you’re unable to relate to me except one-sidedly, there’s no basis for continuing”.
The resident emailed the TFST caseworker on 14 October 2021 and said:
1. The landlord had made the referral without consultation with her or made any reference to the ‘hate notes’ posted through her door.
2. She would like a copy of the landlord’s referral.
3. She would like an answer to her previous enquiry about the TFST caseworker’s qualifications for making assessments.
The TFST caseworker sent an internal email on 14 October 2021 requesting a response to her previous suggestion to complete a joint home visit. The landlord confirmed “a joint visit will be brilliant” in a reply email it sent on 20 October 2021.
The TFST caseworker sent a further internal email on 20 October 2021 to ask what assistance the TFST service could provide because the resident appeared only to want to discuss the letters that were posted through her door and that she had not heard from the neighbourhood team. The caseworker said it was unlikely that the mental health team would take on her case due to the lack of information. The caseworker asked the landlord to contact the resident to speak about the support she might need and to provide further information. The caseworker also asked if the resident was a risk to herself or others.
The TFST caseworker sent an email to the local authorities adult social care team on 25 October 2021 to enquire if the resident was known to the mental health services. The adult social care team replied the same day saying it only took requests for support and information requests via its online form.
The TSFT caseworker emailed the landlord on 17 December 2021 to find out if any further ASB or harassment concerns had been raised. The landlord replied on 20 December 2021 saying, it didn’t have “any open cases regarding the resident”.
The TFST caseworker called the mental health services on 21 December 2021 and was advised that the resident had not engaged with their services and had been discharged to her GP. No further action was taken by the TFST caseworker who subsequently closed the resident’s case on 11 January 2022.
This Service emailed the landlord on 22 December 2021 requesting it raise a stage 1 complaint because the resident had advised this Service that her complaints had not been addressed or investigated and the landlord had kept shutting them down.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 22 December 2021. The response said:
1. It had received a similar report of ASB in May 2021 which was closed because the resident declined to engage with the neighbourhood manager.
2. In order to look into the reports it required a 2-week supply of completed diary sheets so that it could review the evidence and determine if an ASB case would be opened.
3. Its email concluded the investigation into the resident’s complaint.
4. The landlord did not say if the complaint was upheld.
The resident’s representative replied to the landlord on 23 December 2021 to request an escalation of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The landlord replied to the email address later the same day to advise it was unable to correspond with advocates unless a letter of signed authority was provided by the resident. The landlord said this had been sent to the resident on many occasions in the past and requested a signed copy so that it could reply to her representative.
The resident contacted this Service on 23 December 2021 saying the required consent forms for her representative to contact the landlord on her behalf had previously been provided to the landlord. This Service wrote to the landlord the same day requesting an escalation of the complaint to stage 2 on behalf of the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 December 2021 attaching an authorisation form for her representative to act on her behalf. The resident asked the landlord to explain why, after sending its stage 1 complaint response of 22 December 2021 to the same email address, it decided it could not accept the escalation request or correspond with the same email address.
The resident contacted this Service on 21 February 2022 to explain that during a conversation she held with the landlord the same day it did not have an awareness of the resident’s stage 2 complaint or of the ASB incidents. She said this had had an adverse effect on the resident’s health and wellbeing.
This Service sent a second action request to the landlord on 2 March 2022 asking it to provide a stage 2 response to the resident within 5 working days.
The landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgement to the resident on 3 March 2022. The landlord said it would provide a response within 15 working days, by 24 March 2022, and advised if there was any additional information related to the complaint it should be provided within 5 days.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 4 March 2022 which said the resident’s primary complaint related to an assault on her door and notes containing ‘hate speech’ being posted through her door. The resident included a copy her previous email of 13 January 2021 and said:
1. The previous email had related to a second attack within 3 days and no action had been taken by the landlord in response to it.
2. The landlord had not taken action to ensure the safety of the resident, nor did it attend the scene of the incident immediately as was common policy.
3. The 5-day timescale provided for the resident to respond was not fair practise.
4. The resident was a traumatised vulnerable person who had been ignored by people who have a duty of care toward vulnerable tenants.
The landlord attended a professionals’ meeting on 9 March 2022 to discuss the resident’s circumstances and agree an action plan. The meeting was attended by representatives from the police, local authority, and community safety staff. Those attending the meeting agreed:
1. House visits would be made to neighbouring properties.
2. A further supply of diary sheets would be left at the resident’s property.
3. The police would complete investigations into allegations of threatening behaviour from the resident’s neighbours.
4. A follow up meeting would be arranged to be held at a later date to discuss further engagement with the resident.
This Service sent a final letter to the landlord on 11 March 2021 to advise it had until 18 March 2021 to provide a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord phoned this Service the same day to apologise for its delays and to confirm a stage 2 complaint response would be provided in the next 5 working days.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 16 March 2022. The landlord said:
1. The complaint was about noise nuisance, ASB and the delivery of notes through the door.
2. It would assess whether the correct processes were followed.
3. The complaints policy stated complaints relating to ASB would be investigated in respect of how the ASB was managed, not the actual incident(s) itself.
4. All the records logged back to December 2020 had been reviewed, despite this being outside the usual investigation timescales of 6 months.
5. It had acknowledged the resident’s reports of noise nuisance when they were made and had asked the resident to complete diary sheets to gather evidence.
6. It had not received any diary sheets from the resident.
7. It had advised the MP that it could not progress its investigation without substantiating evidence of incidents.
8. The ASB noise nuisance case was opened on 21 April 2021, but the resident said incidents of gatherings and music went back a further 12 months.
9. It had contacted the noise team to obtain evidence, but no information was provided against the reference numbers provided.
10. It had unsuccessfully called the resident on 12 April 2021 and 4 May 2021 and wrote to the resident on 5 May 2021 to provide diary sheets and asked the resident to call back before 14 May 2021.
11. The resident’s representative had contacted the landlord on 12 May 2021, but the landlord advised the representative it could not provide information because a third-party authorisation form that had been provided on 4 occasions had not been returned.
12. The ASB case had been closed because no contact had been made and no further reports had been received.
13. A referral the landlord made to the landlord’s TFTS team had not been taken up by the resident and was subsequently closed.
14. The stage 1 complaint response had confirmed diary sheets would be needed for an investigation to take place.
15. It could not take any further action as a breach of tenancy had not been substantiated.
16. It again maintained that its response to the ASB case had been fair and reasonable.
The landlord wrote to this Service on 16 March 2022 to provide a copy of its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said it intended to set up another joint meeting to discuss the resident’s support needs and her allegations of ASB towards her neighbour.
This Service accepted the complaint case for investigation on 6 October 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling and management of reports of antisocial behaviour, threats and nuisance including the posting of notes by a neighbour.

It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
The landlord received reports of ASB from the resident in December 2020 and responded within 8 working days by providing copies of diary sheets for the resident to complete. The landlord’s ASB Policy said that it will use ‘a range of preventative measures, early intervention and legal action to tackle ASB’ and references the full range of tools and powers in the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Providing diary sheets was therefore a reasonable action for the landlord to take but it was inappropriate that they were provided without holding a conversation with the resident about the ASB matters in line with its ASB policy.
The resident provided the landlord with copies of threatening notes she had received in January 2021 that had caused significant distress to the resident who referred to the contents as ‘hate speech.’ The resident also provided information about 2 ‘attacks’ that had also taken place in her block in January 2021. This Service has not seen any evidence to confirm the landlord took any action to discuss the reports, or the content of the letters with the resident, or investigate this further. This was likely to have caused distress to the resident.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will refer all crime, including threats or acts of violence to the police, but it failed to signpost the resident to the local police to report the matter as a crime, nor forward this information to the police itself. Failing to investigate the attacks and letters, share the information with police and/or reassure the resident that action would be taken was not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and was this was inappropriate.
The landlord recognised that the emails that it had received came from an unverified email address and advised that consent for a representative was required. The landlord appropriately provided the required consent form to the resident and requested it was completed and returned. This was an appropriate response for the landlord to take to satisfy itself that the resident’s permission had been given for confidential information to be shared with a representative.
The landlord had not received the returned consent form in April 2021 when a stage 1 complaint was made and further ASB was reported from the same unverified email address. The landlord attempted to phone the resident using four different telephone numbers to discuss the ASB and obtain consent to engage with the representative. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take to assess the ASB reports, agree how it would respond and gain consent for the representative.
The landlord subsequently issued a letter to the resident’s home address to request contact because it had been unable to establish contact by phone. By using alternative methods of communication the landlord took appropriate steps to communicate with the resident and to progress its investigation into the ASB reports. However, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord completed a welfare visit to the property to speak to the resident in person or sought information from her neighbours which would have been appropriate actions for the landlord to take.
The landlord had received a list of 16 reports of ASB that the resident had previously made to the local authority. The landlord subsequently requested further information to substantiate the resident’s reports from the local authority, and this was an appropriate step for it to take. The local authority advised that it could not provide any further information due to a hacking incident which affected the storage of held data. Whilst the advice the landlord received was likely to have reduced the quality of the evidence, the landlord still had a responsibility to investigate and respond to the reports. It was inappropriate that it didn’t use the reports as the basis for taking action, such as by issuing a block letter, or holding discussions with resident’s to set behavioural expectations related to noise, social gatherings, and parties.
This Service has not been provided with any evidence to show that the landlord reasonably investigated the ASB reports it received prior to closing the ASB case on 20 May 2021. Instead it issued advice that further evidence was required to substantiate the regularity of the ASB. Whilst gathering this type of information is useful and a requirement of good case management it would have been appropriate to have considered using other methods to substantiate the presence of ASB. There is also no evidence that the landlord recognised the distress the cumulative impact of noise, attacks and letters would have had on the resident prior to its later referral to the TFTS in August 2021. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to address the matters and build the resident’s confidence in its ASB service. The landlord’s over-reliance on the return of diary sheets in place of completing additional investigations was unreasonable and resulted in the case being closed prematurely before the resident’s reports of ASB were substantiated. Failing to establish contact with the resident using alternative means available prior to closing her ASB case was inappropriate.
The landlord referred the resident to its TFST service in August 2021 for it to complete an assessment of welfare and potential vulnerability. This was an appropriate decision for the landlord to make, given the landlord could not make contact with the resident, and did not have records of third-party authorisation from her. Furthermore it aligned with the purpose of the TFTS team. However, the referral did not result in obtaining the required contact, consent, or reassurance of the resident’s wellbeing. Instead the referral was closed before her welfare needs and vulnerability were assessed. Closing the case prior to making contact with the resident undermined the purpose for which the referral was intended which resulted in the landlord failing to satisfy itself that the reasonable concerns it had for the resident’s welfare had been met.
The landlord attended a professionals’ meeting with representatives from the police, local authority, and community safety staff to discuss the matter in March 2022. This was an appropriate action for the landlord to take and evidences an awareness that a multi-agency approach was required. However, the meeting was held over a year after the resident had reported being attacked and receiving notes containing ‘hate speech.’ This was an unreasonably long time for the landlord to take to coordinate or contribute to a multi-agency response to the ASB, vulnerability and safeguarding concerns associated with the case.
The landlord assessed its response to the ASB case prior to issuing its stage 2 complaint response by reviewing its records and previous complaint response to the resident. It provided a detailed explanation of the case, the actions it had taken, and the requirements for further action to be taken. Providing this information was good practice and therefore appropriate. However the landlord’s response failed to look beyond the limited evidence it had been provided so as to consider what else it could reasonably have done to verify the presence of ASB and provide support to the resident. The landlord failed to apply this Service’s dispute resolution principles which include putting things right, and learning from outcomes and so did not consider whether it was appropriate to offer some form of compensation for the inconvenience, time, trouble, and distress its failure to investigate would have caused the resident. Furthermore the landlord failed to explain how it might change its services, or what it may put in place in recognition of the handling of the reports of ASB and the associated complaints.
The landlord failed to follow its own processes when handling and investigating the ASB reports it received. This left the resident without a clear action plan or understanding about how her concerns would be resolved. The landlord failed to address the reports it received by holding appropriate conversations and using other available investigation opportunities. Instead it repeatedly issued diary sheets and refused to respond to emails it received from an unknown email address. The landlord appropriately identified welfare concerns and a requirement to verify the email address and/or obtain consent to engage with the representative. However, the landlord subsequently failed to satisfy itself that these concerns were addressed. The landlord failed to appropriately assess the risks to the resident at the start or during the case and to understand whether she required adjustments to respond to any present vulnerability and/or support needs. This resulted in the landlord closing the ASB case prior to completing appropriate investigations into the ASB and associated welfare matter. Taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling and management of reports of antisocial behaviour, threats, and nuisance including the posting of notes by a neighbour.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint of 11 April 2021 in line with its complaint policy. Instead it sent an email 4 working days later to request further information about the ASB the complaint had referred to. While the landlord’s policy said it could not accept a complaint from an authorised representative it’s reply would have been confusing as it implied it did.
2. Did not provide a stage 1 response to the resident until 23 December 2021 which was 182 working days after it had initially been raised.
3. Provided the stage 1 complaint response only after this Service emailed it on 22 December 2021 to request the complaint was raised.
4. Did not comply with paragraph 5.8 of the complaint handling code by:
  1. Summarising what the complaint was about.
  2. Adequately addressing the complaint about its investigations into the resident’s ASB reports and allegations that it kept shutting the resident down.
  3. Advising if the stage 1 complaint was upheld.
5. Did not comply with paragraph 1.7 of the complaint handling code by accepting the stage 2 escalation complaint from the resident’s representative, after the resident had said she had provided consent.
6. Did not provide a stage 2 complaint response to the resident within its policy timescales which resulted in this Service issuing a second request for action letter to the landlord.
7. Issued its stage 2 complaint on 16 March 2022, 55 working days after it had been requested which was not in line with its complaint policy, or paragraph 5.3 of the complaint handling code.
When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes, apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord may also make reference to its compensation policy for reasonable redress to be provided. The landlord did not recognise its failings and therefore did not offer the resident any form of compensation in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and distress caused to the resident by its failure to appropriately investigate the ASB.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling and management of reports of antisocial behaviour, threats and nuisance including the posting of notes by a neighbour.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord failed to follow its own processes in its handling and investigation of the ASB reports it received. The landlord failed to address the reports of ASB it received by using early intervention, or other investigative opportunities. It recognised its obligations to obtain consent prior to engaging with third parties or representatives, but it did not see through its obligations to gain consent within a reasonable timescale. As a result the landlord did not communicate with the resident about her reports of ASB in line with its policies. This left the resident without a clear action plan or understanding about how her concerns would be resolved. The landlord failed to assess the risks to the resident and whether she required adjustments based on vulnerability and support needs. This resulted in the landlord closing the ASB case prior to completing reasonable investigations.
The landlord failed to comply with the principles of its own complaints policy and the housing ombudsman complaint handling code when responding to the resident’s complaint. This resulted in the resident waiting an unreasonable amount of time for both the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses to be provided.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in investigating the ASB and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided in writing within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 4 weeks of receipt of this report, the landlord is ordered to make contact with the resident to discuss any ongoing concerns she may have about the presence of ASB, and any support needs she may have.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £650 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s management and handling of reports of ASB.
2. £250 for time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Within 2 months of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to review the learning from this case to ensure that its safeguarding referral processes are up to date and understood by ASB case managers. Further to ensure that its housing management staff are able to recognise safeguarding and welfare matters so as to raise alerts and make referrals using appropriate channels.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s October 2022 spotlight report on noise complaints. The landlord is recommended to share the findings with relevant staff, including training where appropriate and to incorporate the findings of this report in its management of such cases in future.
Within 2 months of the date of this report the landlord is recommended to review the learning on this case in respect of its management of ASB. In particular related to:
1. The use of early intervention for investigating and addressing reports.
2. Gaining third-party consent.
3. Agreeing action plans and communication channels with complainants