The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Peabody Trust (202200342)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200342

Peabody Trust

13 February 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 noise nuisance.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association, and occupies a 1 bedroom property on the first floor of a block of flats. The resident’s reports of noise nuisance relate to the property directly below.
  2. The resident first reported to the landlord that she was experiencing noise nuisance on 24 January 2022. She said that the neighbours, who had just moved in, were playing loud music during the day and into the evening, daily. She made a further report about the noise on 15 March 2022. On both occasions the landlord asked the resident to complete and submit diary sheets so the matter could be investigated. She was also advised to contact the council’s environmental health team (EHT). The resident acted on this advice and made frequent reports to the EHT, every few days, from 26 January 2022 onwards.
  3. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 6 April 2022, explaining that the landlord had not responded to the complaint she had made in January 2022. The Ombudsman asked it to respond to the resident by 22 April 2022. It subsequently logged a stage 1 complaint on 7 April 2022 and provided its response on 6 June 2022.
  4. In its response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident felt her reports of noise, which she considered to be antisocial behaviour (ASB), were not being taken seriously. It recognised she also wanted a manager to review the case as she felt the Neighbourhood Manager (NM) was biased. The landlord explained it had not opened an ASB case as it had not received the diary sheets and, therefore, had no evidence to support the resident’s reports. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered £50 compensation for this. It asked the resident to engage with it in relation to the noise and offered mediation.
  5. The resident asked that her complaint be escalated on 21 June 2022. She claimed the landlord had ignored her reports of ASB and had dismissed a letter sent to it by the EHT on 30 March 2022, which evidenced the ASB. She explained the situation was affecting her health and performance at work. The Area Manager (AM) responded the same day and explained it needed more time to investigate but she could escalate the complaint if she was unhappy with the outcome of its investigations.
  6. Upon receipt of completed diary sheets from the resident an ASB case was opened. An action plan was devised on 23 June 2022, in which it was agreed the resident would continue to submit diary sheets and consider mediation. The landlord was to contact the neighbour to discuss the allegations and to consult with the EHT to understand what reports had been made and what action had been taken.
  7. The resident again asked to escalate her complaint on 11 July 2022. She made additional reports of noise in July and October 2022 and asked for a rent reduction as a result.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 November 2022, following further intervention from the Ombudsman. It apologised for delays and issues with its communication. It claimed the EHT had delayed in providing details of the reports she had made to it, for which it could not be held responsible. It concluded there was not enough evidence to determine that the noise amounted to ASB. It was therefore unable to compensate in terms of a rent reduction. It repeated its offer of mediation, said it hoped she would continue to work with it, and suggested that a noise monitor could be used. It offered £150 compensation for delays and poor communication in its handling of the case and a further £200 for complaint handling failures.
  9. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response as she felt it had dismissed the evidence and failed to address the ASB. The resident considers the noise nuisance to be ongoing at the time of this investigation.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

  1. In cases of ASB the role of the Ombudsman is to investigate how a landlord handled any reports of ASB it received and to determine if it acted in accordance with its policies and procedures, taking into consideration the issues being reported. The landlord has an ASB policy which sets out its definition of ASB. This aligns with the definition as detailed in the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. In a housing context it clarifies that this means ‘conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance.’ Low level disagreements between neighbours, where there is no breach of tenancy, will generally not be considered ASB.
  2. The policy states the landlord will only investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours. It will encourage and expect residents to take responsibility for solving personal disputes between themselves where appropriate. This may include collating evidence, liaising with other agencies and taking part in mediation.
  3. The landlord’s records show that, upon receipt of the resident’s initial reports of noise nuisance, on 24 January and 15 March 2022, it logged the matter and advised her to complete diary sheets. As it explained in its complaint response, it did not open an ASB case at this time. The landlord’s policy outlines that it will only investigate noise disturbance as ASB where it is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours. It was, therefore, appropriate for it to ask the resident to complete a log so it could determine if this threshold was met.
  4. The landlord also advised the resident to report the noise to the council’s EHT. The landlord’s policy states it will work in partnership with stakeholders including councils to tackle ASB. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate complaints of noise to decide whether the noise is a statutory nuisance. This could, therefore, also be considered appropriate advice.
  5. The situation escalated in March 2022. The neighbour informed the landlord they had received a warning letter from the EHT and made counter allegations against the resident, which included noise disturbance. The landlord said it had discussed the resident’s concerns with the neighbour and attempted to do the same with the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to discuss the resident’s reports with the neighbour, however it could have done so sooner.
  6. While, as per its policy, it encourages residents to solve disputes between themselves, it could have explored whether the resident felt able to do this and offered to intervene when she first reported the issue. As landlord to both parties, it was in a unique position to bring the matter to their attention and seek resolution at the earliest opportunity.
  7. This may also have demonstrated to the resident that the landlord, specifically the NM, was acting upon her concerns. The resident refused to engage with the NM when he contacted her on 17 March 2022, as she felt he had done nothing to assist. She asked for another point of contact to provide updates. It was explained this might not be possible and might delay matters. The records suggest the resident did not receive a further update and it was left for her to chase the landlord on 6 April 2022, and 6 and 18 May 2022. However, in its stage 2 response the landlord said it tried to contact her several times to no avail and the NM sent her a letter on 29 April 2022 outlining the actions it had taken. Overall, it was not consistently responsive or prompt in its communication throughout this period, which caused the resident some unnecessary frustration.
  8. However, the landlord had been clear that it needed diary sheets to investigate and expressed this on several occasions. This was reiterated in its letter of 29 April 2022, in which it explained it would be able to address the issue with the neighbour upon receipt of these. It was not until 15 June 2022 that it received the retrospective diary sheets.
  9. The records show the resident made frequent reports of noise disturbance to the EHT from January 2022 onwards. She noted in her complaint that this should have provided enough evidence for the landlord to act. These reports constituted a log and may have been sufficient for the landlord to open an ASB case and investigate. However, it was unaware of these reports. While we would expect the council and landlord to work in partnership, they are separate entities and information provided to one will not automatically be shared with the other.
  10. The resident also alleged that the EHT had forwarded the NM a copy of a warning letter it had sent to the neighbour on 30 March 2022, as evidence of the ASB. The landlord refuted that it received this. However, it had awareness of a previous letter sent by the EHT to the neighbour on 16 March 2022. This presented an opportunity for the landlord to consult with the EHT to understand the situation. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review the arrangements it has in place with the council’s EHT to promote information sharing and where possible, prevent residents having to duplicate the reports they make.
  11. The landlord offered the resident mediation in its stage 1 response. The landlord’s policy suggests this is used to resolve low level disagreements. Given allegations and counter allegations had been made, this could be considered an appropriate intervention. The records suggest mediation remained an option throughout the case and was offered again in its stage 2 response.
  12. The landlord did not directly address the resident’s complaint that the NM was biased, however going forward the AM became the main point of contact. In its stage 2 response, it explained it had spoken to the NM and reviewed the case and had found no evidence of bias. From the records reviewed, the Ombudsman has found no evidence to the contrary.
  13. Following the complaint response there was improved communication between the landlord and resident. The resident provided contact details for the officer in the EHT, and the retrospective diary sheets. The landlord was then proactive in following up with the EHT to request a log of the reports the resident had made and to see what action had been taken. On 21 June 2022, the landlord confirmed an ASB case had been opened and it agreed an action plan with the resident on 23 June 2022. The landlord’s policy requires it to respond to reports of low level ASB within 5 days and to create an action plan within 5 days so these actions can be seen as appropriate and in line with the timeframes specified in its policy and procedure.
  14. The action plan outlined a range of proportionate next steps, however progress against these was slow, and in some instances stalled. The records show the landlord chased the EHT several times for an update and stressed the urgency. The EHT finally provided the log on 7 September 2022. The Ombudsman agrees that, as the landlord outlined in its stage 2 response, it should not be held responsible for delays on the part of another organisation. It appreciates, for much of the time, the landlord was waiting on key information from the EHT to help direct what action it could take.
  15. However, in the absence of this information it was reasonable for it to conduct its own enquiries. As a minimum we might have expected the landlord to discuss the resident’s concerns with the neighbour. There is no evidence it did this, despite the assurances it made in its letter dated 29 April 2022, and as specified in the action plan.
  16. A review was conducted by the Area Community Safety Lead, on 21 September 2022, and directed the NM to revisit the action plan, to consider a noise monitor, and to speak to other neighbours to establish if they had experienced noise. Enquiries were made with another neighbour on 29 September 2022, some 3 months after the ASB case had been opened. This was a practical action that it could have taken at an earlier juncture.
  17. The resident made further reports of noise nuisance on 27 July 2022, and on 7 and 26 October 2022. She noted there was no point completing diary sheets as no action was being taken, and she asked for a rent reduction. It appears reasonable the resident felt no action was being taken as the landlord was not progressing with the action plan, nor providing fortnightly updates to the resident, as it was required to do in line with its policy. The records indicate the landlord updated the action plan on 8 August 2022 to acknowledge it had received further reports from the resident, but there is no additional evidence that it communicated any action it was taking to the resident.
  18. In its stage 2 response of 7 November 2022, the landlord informed the resident that, based on the evidence it had received, it did not consider the noise to be ASB. It referenced having previously advised her of this, but there are no records showing this had been communicated prior to the complaint response. In the absence of any conclusive evidence, it is not possible to establish fault on this point, but overall, there were failings in how the landlord communicated with the resident, which it acknowledged in its stage 2 response.
  19. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s conclusion that the noise was not ASB and felt it had dismissed the evidence. The Ombudsman has reviewed the records submitted by the EHT and appreciates they do not ‘evidence’ the occurrences of noise nuisance, but rather appear inconclusive. They show it made a number of calls and conducted visits to the resident during the period from January to August 2022, but did not witness the noise. On many occasions this was because the noise had stopped by the time calls were returned or was not present when proactive calls or visits were conducted. Furthermore, it was difficult for the resident to establish a discernible pattern in when the noise was occurring.
  20. Given this, a noise monitor may have been a sensible intervention to gather evidence. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the noise app or recording equipment was offered to the resident prior to the stage 2 response, however, it noted in this response that the resident had refused to record the noise. Given the resident considers the situation ongoing, it is recommended that this offer is once again extended.
  21. The Ombudsman considers it was reasonable for the landlord to investigate the noise under its ASB policy. The resident had reported excessive, frequent noise, which sometimes occurred at antisocial hours. However, after, or indeed alongside its ASB investigation, we might expect the landlord to have explored other contributory factors pertaining to noise transference. The fact that counter allegations of noise disturbance were reported by the neighbour add weight to considerations around transference issues between the properties. Furthermore, the Ombudsman understands that the resident had reported noise disturbance from the last occupants of the neighbour’s property. Going forward the landlord should investigate and consider any appropriate and proportionate solutions, such as sound proofing.
  22. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on noise report published in October 2022 sets out a number of recommendations for landlords to guide handling of noise reports. The landlord explained that it recently attended a workshop held by this Service looking at the report’s findings and recommendations. If the landlord has not done so already, it is also encouraged to self-assess against the recommendations. It should give particular consideration to the importance of developing a good neighbourhood management policy with processes for dealing with noise that may not meet statutory or ASB thresholds. Consideration should also be given to the service level agreement it has with the council, with reference to the dual responsibilities they have in dealing with noise reports, given the landlord’s handling of the case was impeded by delays on the part of the council.
  23. Overall, the Ombudsman considers there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the noise reports which centre on its delays in progressing the matter and its level of communication. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response and offered compensation of £150 for time and trouble caused to the resident. This offer was made in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and indicated it considered its failings to have caused moderate disruption to the resident.
  24. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (good practice guidance to drive effective dispute resolution) are that landlords should: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes. In this case, in investigating and responding to the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord has demonstrated that it took steps to provide a fair response which sought to acknowledge its failings and put things right for the resident. Having regard to the landlord’s compensation policy and this Service’s own guidance on remedies, we are satisfied that the landlord has offered redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolves this part of the complaint. However, recommendations have been made below to improve the landlord’s service going forward and avoid similar issues arising in the future.

Landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 6 April 2022 to report that the landlord had not responded to a complaint she had made about the noise nuisance in January 2022. The resident provided a complaint reference number as evidence a complaint was logged. The landlord has confirmed this was a call log reference. It did not consider this a complaint, and instead treated the report as a service request. The records suggest she was in fact reporting the issue, and for the first time (though she had made an historic report about the previous tenants).
  2. The complaints policy in effect at that time specifically states that reports of ASB or nuisance, rather than complaints about the handling of an existing case, will not be dealt with through the complaints procedure. The Ombudsman therefore finds no fault in the way the landlord initially categorised the issue. Furthermore, the landlord promptly logged a stage 1 complaint on 7 April 2022, on the request of the Ombudsman.
  3. However, it was not until 6 June 2022, 38 working days later, that the landlord responded to the complaint. The landlord’s policy, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (Code), requires that stage 1 responses be provided within 10 working days. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered the resident £50 compensation for this.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied and asked that her complaint be escalated on 21 June 2022. The AM refused on the basis she needed more time to investigate now that the diary sheets had been provided and an ASB case had been opened. The Code notes a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. On balance, the Ombudsman considers it fair that the landlord first had the opportunity to investigate the matter and was clear and prompt in communicating this to the resident.
  5. The resident made a further escalation request on 11 July 2022. There is no evidence this was logged or responded to. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in August 2022 explaining she had not received a response. It was frustrating for the resident not knowing whether her complaint was being investigated, and she was inconvenienced by having to prompt a response via the Ombudsman.
  6. This Service contacted the landlord on 25 August 2022, and asked that it respond within 10 days. There appears to have been some confusion about what response was required, and the landlord provided its stage 1 letter. The Ombudsman sent a further letter on 29 September 2022, specifying that it should provide a stage 2 response by 3 October 2022. It was only on 3 October 2022 that the landlord acknowledged the complaint and said it would respond within 15 days, by 24 October 2022. This presented a further delay which, given the resident had already waited a significant amount of time, was an additional source of frustration for her.
  7. On 24 October 2022, the landlord informed the resident it needed an extension of 10 days to fully investigate. The landlord’s policy allows for extensions of 10 days, providing it explains why it needs the additional time, as it did in this case. However, it would have been courteous for it to have communicated this to the resident and managed her expectations, prior to the response deadline.
  8. The response came on 7 November 2022, which was 84 working days from the date of escalation in July 2022. The landlord acknowledged the delays in its complaint handling, apologised and explained this had been due to staff absence, a change in management and an increase in complaints to the service. It noted this was being addressed as part of its merger and it was increasing its staffing. It offered £200 compensation for this. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy at the time, and indicates it considered this a severe failure. The amount also aligns with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is also considered to provide reasonable redress for this part of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of noise nuisance.
    2. Formal complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should:
    1. If it has not already done so, pay directly to the resident £350 compensation (£150 for time, trouble and inconvenience caused by delays and poor communication in its handling of the noise reports and £200 for delays in complaint handling). Please note the reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident as it recognised service failings which required remedy. Please confirm this has been done within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
    2. Self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise and look to implement its recommendations, with reference to the development of a good neighbourhood management policy to guide its interventions where statutory or ASB thresholds are not met.
    3. Review its service level agreement with the council’s environmental health team. This is to promote information sharing and, where possible, prevent residents having to duplicate the reports they make.
    4. Engage with the resident and extend the offer of a noise monitor or use of the noise app, given that she reports the situation is ongoing.
    5. Consider any additional measures it can deploy to alleviate the noise disturbance, regardless of its cause. For example, sound proofing could be explored as appropriate/proportionate.