Peabody Trust (202108578)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108578

Peabody Trust

19 November 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 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 concerns how the landlord handled:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour.
   2. The formal complaint into the matter.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
3. The resident had reported that she had experienced ongoing issues of ASB from a neighbour in the building. She raised the matter with the landlord in February 2020 and described incidents of noise nuisance and damage to windows. The landlord opened an ASB case and CCTV cameras were installed. During a telephone conversation on 13 March 2020, the resident informed the landlord that the CCTV had been an effective deterrent and there had been no recent issues.

Policies and procedures

4. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as:
   1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
   2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
   3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
5. The ASB policy goes on to state that the landlord will respond to high risk ASB within one working day and to low risk ASB within five working days. In regard to how it will handle reports of noise nuisance, the policy states that it “will only investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours”. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 and Noise Act 1996 give landlords the power to act where there is “excessive” noise between the hours of 11pm and 7am in domestic premises. “Excessive” is not defined within either Act.
6. The ASB policy also states that the landlord will “refer all crime, including threats or acts of violence, to the police”.
7. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, an investigation will be undertaken by a manager from the relevant department and a stage one response will be sent. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint. A review of the complaint will then be undertaken, and a stage two response will be sent to the resident. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
8. The landlord’s complaints policy does not provide timescales for when it will provide its complaint responses. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling procedures. The Code requires complaint response timescales in landlords’ complaints procedure to be for the landlord to respond at the first stage of the complaint process within ten working days of receiving a complaint, and to respond at the second and final stage of the complaint process within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
9. The landlord’s complaints policy also states that the landlord will not normally consider complaints that were raised six months after the issue occurred, although it may use its discretion in “exceptional circumstances”.

Summary of events

10. On 29 March 2021 the resident wrote a letter of complaint to the landlord. She described the elements of the complaint as:
    1. She was dissatisfied with ongoing incidents of ASB from a neighbour in the building and how the matter had been handled by the landlord.
    2. During the national lockdowns due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the incidents of ASB had increased, resulting in damage to windows and doors in the building.
    3. The landlord had not properly followed its ASB or its safeguarding policy during it visits and correspondence with the resident in response to these reports.
    4. The landlord should have gathered sufficient evidence via CCTV footage to enable it to take action against the neighbour for ASB.
    5. She did not feel safe in her home due to the ongoing ASB and the poor response from the landlord.
11. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to be transferred to a new property.
12. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 31 March 2021 and informed the resident that it would provide a response in a “timely manner”.
13. On 1 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord’s internal correspondence described this email as an informal response, not a formal stage one complaint response to the resident. The email informed the resident that:
    1. In 2020, the resident had reported incidents of ASB including broken windows, people ringing her doorbell at unsociable hours and the entrance door to the building being left open.
    2. CCTV was installed in the communal areas of the building. This captured an incident of ASB which was shared with the police. The perpetrator was identified and the landlord issued them with a formal warning letter.
    3. In December 2020, letters were sent to all residents of the building asking them to report any incidents of ASB to both the landlord and the police. The landlord did not receive any further reports of ASB following these letters. 
    4. The landlord would continue to work with the police and residents to make sure any further reports of ASB were acknowledged, evidence was gathered, and appropriate enforcement action was taken.
    5. The landlord suggested options for providing further support to the tenant if she thought this would be helpful.
14. The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 April 2021 and requested an escalation of the complaint on the grounds that its response had not addressed all the issues she had raised in her letter of complaint.
15. The landlord acknowledged the request on 1 April 2021 and wrote again on 6 April 2021 to confirm that the complaint had been escalated to stage two of its internal process and it would provide a response within 10 working days. On 8 April 2021 the landlord informed the resident that a due to the high number of complaint reviews it was currently processing, that it had extended its response time to 5 May 2021.
16. On 30 April 2021 the resident’s Member of Parliament (MP) wrote to the landlord on her behalf in regard to outstanding repairs required to the building and to the neighbour’s property.
17. The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 6 May 2021. The landlord advised:
    1. As per its complaint policy, it had reviewed its response to the ASB in the six months prior to the complaint being made.
    2. It described the action it had taken in 2020 to address ASB reports at that time, The landlord also confirmed that all the damage that had occurred in those incidents had been repaired.
    3. In reference to the repairs highlighted in the MP’s email, the landlord informed the resident that its repairs team had been in contact with the neighbour to arrange work to complete repairs to the property.
    4. In reference to the noise nuisance reported by the resident, the landlord explained that in order for it to take action, the noise must be deemed as excessive. Noise that is deemed as general household noise would not be considered to be ASB. It advised the resident to contact the local authority as it has statutory powers relating to noise nuisance which are not available to the landlord.
    5. Its tenants and family support team would be visiting the resident to discuss the issues she had raised about her wellbeing in more detail and to assess what external agencies it could refer the resident to for additional support. This meeting would also address the resident’s request to be rehoused.
    6. It apologised to the resident for the length of time the situation had gone on for and the frustration and anxiety this had caused. It assured the resident that it was working with the police in order to collect the necessary information for enforcement action to be taken. It advised the resident to continue to inform it of any further incidents of ASB she experienced.
18. The landlord confirmed that the complaint was initially logged as an expression of dissatisfaction, which is the landlord’s informal complaint process. Although this was corrected and a formal complaint was opened and acknowledged, an informal complaint response was incorrectly sent to the resident on 1 April 2021.
19. A further error occurred when the complaint was escalated without a formal response being sent to the resident at stage one of its process. The landlord apologised to the resident and informed that an internal review of how it manages complaints had been undertaken to avoid a similar mistake in future. It also offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of it not properly following its complaints process at stage one of its internal complaints process.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB

20. It is outside the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether someone has or has not committed ASB; rather the Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
21. Overall, the landlord has followed its ASB policy and procedures in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour. It opened an ASB case, agreed an action plan with the resident, and arranged to have CCTV installed to cover the communal areas of the building. It looked to gather additional evidence by writing to all residents of the building asking them to report any incidents of ASB they had witnessed.
22. When an incident of criminal damage was captured on CCTV, the landlord contacted the police, in line with its ASB policy. The perpetrator was identified and was served with a formal warning which was an appropriate response under the circumstances.
23. Landlords can only take formal action against tenants for ASB such as acceptable behaviour orders, court injunctions or eviction proceedings if there is sufficient evidence to show that formal action is appropriate. In order to secure an injunction or eviction, the landlord would have to go to court and it would be expected to show the court that the ASB was severe and persistent and (except in the most extreme cases) reasonable efforts had been made to resolve the issues informally (mediation, tenancy warnings, acceptable behaviour orders etc.) before the landlord pursued court action. In this context, it was reasonable for the landlord to issue a tenancy warning in the first instance rather than pursuing formal measures such as eviction or an injunction against the neighbour.
24. The landlord has also provided evidence to this Service which shows the contact it has had with the police when reporting the criminal damage and the correspondence and meetings it had with the neighbour regarding their behaviour.
25. The Ombudsman is unable to share detailed information involving other residents as we cannot share other residents’ personal information without their consent. However, based on the information we have seen, we are satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the issues of ASB raised by the resident with her neighbour. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord in how it responded to the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s complaint handling

26. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had not properly followed its complaint process at stage one. The landlord apologised to the resident and explained that it had raised the issues internally. It also explained what action it planned to undertake and offered £100 compensation for its service failure.
27. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
28. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and explaining what it did wrong. It put things right by aplogising to the resident and awarding appropriate compensation. It looked to learn from its error by recognising that the issue was caused by how complaints are assigned the appropriate staff member when they are received and conducting a review to improve its procedures to prevent a similar incident occurring.
29. The compensation payment was in line with Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £50 to £250 in cases of service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome.
30. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact” on the outcome of the complaint.
31. In this case, while the landlord did not provide a full formal complaint response at stage one of its processes, which would have provided information on how to escalate the complaint, the resident made the escalation request on the same day she received the informal complaint response. Therefore, this error did not prevent or delay her from being able to escalate her complaint. The landlord’s final complaint response addressed all outstanding issues and undertook a full review of how the complaint was handled at stage one of its process. There was a delay in the landlord issuing its final response to the complaint, which would have caused some inconvenience to the resident. However, the landlord explained the reasons for the delay and kept the resident updated. This delay has been taken into consideration when assessing the landlord’s offer of compensation for errors in its complaint handling. The offer of £100 remains reasonable, considering this delay.
32. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to address what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s reports of ASB. 
34. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled the formal complaint, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Reasons

35. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its obligations, acknowledging her reports and undertaking an investigation.
36. When an incident of criminal damage was recorded on CCTV, the landlord took appropriate action by contacting the police in the first instance. The perpetrator was subsequently identified and a formal warning was issued.
37. The landlord remained engaged with the residents of the building and has looked to gather more evidence to enable it to take further action regarding the reports of ASB.
38. The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to provide a formal response to her initial complaint. The landlord apologised and awarded compensation proportionate to the effect of this failure on the resident.