Peabody Trust (202215699)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215699

Peabody Trust

18 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

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

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. She lives in a block of flats with shared communal areas. She has informed both the landlord and the Ombudsman that she is a vulnerable person.
In September 2021 the landlord alleged she racially abused one of its employees. The police were called and the resident was arrested.
It was alleged that the resident verbally abused the landlord’s employees again on 21 September 2021. The landlord recorded that multiple staff members had to intervene to stop the resident and the police were called.
On 29 September 2021, the landlord telephoned the resident about these allegations. They recorded that she was shouting during the call about its staff being near her property. The landlord asked the resident not to approach any of the staff on site.
On 4 April 2022 and 11 April 2022, the landlord recorded two further incidents. On both occasions the resident is alleged to have approached one of its employees at their home address and used foul and abusive language towards them. The landlord wrote to her on 11 April 2022 to arrange an interview and discuss the allegations it received.
The resident complained to the landlord on 20 April 2022. She disputed the contents of the letter and raised issues with staff conduct during phone calls. She asked that staff do not try and shout her into submission and asked for another officer to speak to her about the case.
The landlord sent a breach of tenancy warning letter to the resident on 4 July 2022. The letter referred to the incidents above and offered her additional support. It reiterated that the resident should not approach its staff on site and to raise any new requests to its customer care team.
The landlord sent a final breach of tenancy warning to the resident on 7 July 2022. This warning referred to a new incident on the same day where the resident is alleged to have verbally abused its employees on site.
The resident made a second complaint to the landlord on 7 July 2022. She said:
1. The contents of the warning letter were untrue.
2. She felt that the landlord was “spreading lies about her”.
3. She asked for a meeting at their office.
4. She asked for a different officer to speak to her about the case.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 15 August 2022. This was around 4 months after the complaint was made. It did not uphold her complaint and said:
1. The complaint had been logged on 12 July 2022.
2. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint.
3. An investigation was conducted by its officers into ASB.
4. It believed that the warning letters were reasonable.
5. It arranged for a new officer to contact her regarding allegations of ASB.
6. It asked her to keep away from employees who work on site near her home.
7. It directed her to its customer care team as a single point of contact.
On 16 August 2022, the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
1. She did not accept the landlord’s response.
2. There was no evidence that she racially abused any of the landlord’s staff.
3. The landlord was protecting staff from her complaints by not keeping proper records.
4. She did not want staff to come to her home.
In its final response to the resident on 7 October 2022, the landlord did not uphold the complaint. It said:
1. It believed that the investigation into ASB was in line with policy and was fair and reasonable.
2. The stage 1 complaint investigation was fair and reasonable.
3. The allegations made about staff conduct were investigated and not proven.
4. The resident’s behaviour had been unacceptable. She should not approach the staff on site.
5. It apologised for its complaint handling at both stage 1 and 2 and awarded the resident £100 in compensation.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She approached the Ombudsman on 1 December 2022. She complained about the landlords handling of ASB and the decision to issue a warning letter. She said the landlord should retract the warning and apologise for its actions.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy defined 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, or;
3. conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s ASB policy stated that it will deal with any ASB committed against its employees in line with internal processes and its duty as an employer.
The tenancy conditions confirm residents must not do anything that is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance or behave in a violent or threatening way towards their neighbours, other tenants, the landlord’s staff or anyone lawfully in the area near the property. Residents must not harass anyone near the property because of their race, colour, national origin, ethnic origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age or for any other reason.
The landlord’s complaint policy shows it operates a two-stage complaint process. Complaint responses are sent to residents within 10 and 20 working days at stage 1 and 2 respectively.

The landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

The evidence shows that the landlord complied with its procedures in respect of its investigation. Its records show that it made reasonable efforts to interview the resident about the allegations received. It sent appointment letters, made telephone calls, and attempted visits to the resident to discuss the allegations. The evidence shows that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and made offers of support that she chose not to accept.
The warning letters clearly set out the details of the allegations received. They say when the landlord had spoken to the resident and what appointments she had been given to attend interviews. The landlord highlighted the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence available. Before sending the warning letters the landlord spoke to the resident and gave her the opportunity to respond to the allegations. While the resident disputed the allegations and found the letters distressing the Ombudsman finds the actions were in line with the landlords policy.
The resident stated that she should not have been issued warnings because the police were unable to prosecute her. It is important to state that the evidential threshold for criminal proceedings is much higher than those for civil proceedings. The landlord’s decision to issue warnings on the basis that it was more probable than not that the alleged incidents occurred was reasonable in this case.
The decision that the resident could not approach employees who work on site near her home and to direct her to a single point of contact was reasonable. However, it should have been clear to the resident how long the restriction was for and when it would be reviewed. It had no policy in place that covered restricted contact at the time but has now introduced its unreasonable communication policy. This provides guidance on the circumstances, type, and length of any contact restrictions. In view of the new policy no additional recommendations have been made in relation to this.
The resident said that the landlord’s employees behaved unprofessionally during calls to her. The allegations were investigated by the landlord, who found that there was no evidence of staff misconduct. The landlord said that the call referred to was not recorded but apologised for how the conversation had made her feel in its complaint handling. It kept detailed records of the calls made to the resident and conducted a reasonable investigation into the allegations. It was right for the landlord to offer an apology to the resident on how the situation made her feel. It kept clear records that are in line with good practice.
In her emails and complaint request, the resident asked for other officers to speak to her about reports made about her. The landlord told her in both complaint responses that it had allocated a new officer to contact her. This is reflected in the landlord’s records as calls after the complaint were made by another officer.
The resident asked the landlord to meet her at another location (not the landlords usual office) with other officers to discuss the allegations it had made. The landlord’s records show that it spoke to her several times after this request. The notes from these calls say that it tried to meet with her again, but this offer was not taken up.
The landlord offered to make referrals for support in its warning letters, which is good practice and recognition of her vulnerabilities. It should consider making a new offer of support so the resident has a third party who can assist her with tenancy related matters in future.
The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of antisocial behaviour. The situation may have been distressing to the resident, however the landlord responded to reports in line with its procedure and acted reasonably based on the evidence available at the time.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies to deadlines and time limits given to the resident. Failure to do so is unfair to the resident and can cause avoidable delays.
There was an unreasonable delay of around 4 months to provide a stage 1 response. The resident made her first complaint on 20 April 2022 and a second complaint on 7 July 2022. The landlord acknowledged a delay in its stage 1 response, but it referred to the complaint being raised on 12 July 2022. All the dates the landlord referred to were incorrect. There was a failure in this case for the landlord to accurately record the dates when complaints were made. There was also a failure to acknowledge the first complaint.
There was a further delay of around one month in the landlord’s stage 2 response. The timeline points to combined complaint handling delays of around 5 months. Where a resident has had warnings against their tenancy, delays can cause stress and inconvenience so it is important to keep residents informed.
The landlord recognised that there were complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response. It apologised to the resident and acknowledged that there had been delays providing both the stage 1 and 2 responses. However, there was no reference to its failure to recognise the first complaint in April 2022. There was no explanation for the delays and the offer of £100 in compensation was not reflective of these failures.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The failure to recognise or respond to the initial complaint in April 2022 caused delays in its complaint handling. There was avoidable time and trouble taken by the resident recording a new complaint. Orders have been made below for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation in respect of this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports about the resident’s alleged antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £200 in compensation for its failing in its complaint handling. It can deduct any amount it has already paid from the £100 previously awarded.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review its complaint handling procedures and ensure that its frontline staff can recognise complaints appropriately.
2. Make a new offer of support to the resident for tenancy related matters.
3. It should contact the resident within 4 weeks of this report and ensure that any contact restrictions in place for the resident are done so in accordance with its unreasonable communication policy.