Peabody Trust (202307894)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307894

Peabody Trust

10 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s concerns about an acceptable behaviour contract that was issued in January 2022 at a meeting that was conducted at short notice.
2. The resident’s request for clarification on what areas it designated as communal.
3. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) after September 2021.
4. The resident’s request for an additional fire escape.
This report also looks at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.
This report also looks at the landlord’s handling of knowledge and information.

Background

The resident lives in a 4-bedroom property that was let under an assured tenancy in April 2010. The property is a converted house that is owned and managed by a housing association. The resident shares a communal front entrance door and hallway with the neighbour about whom she has made reports of antisocial behaviour.
The landlord records that the resident has physical disabilities.
The resident submitted a previous complaint to the landlord about antisocial behaviour (ASB) issues between the resident and her neighbour. This Service investigated the complaint from the resident about the landlord’s response to her ASB reports between 2019 and 2020 under case reference 201914735.
The resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord about related ASB matters that was determined by this Service in May 2023 under complaint reference 202104592. The report makes reference to an overlap of ASB matters but determined the landlord’s response to ASB matters that had occurred between February 2021 up to the landlord’s final complaint response of 24 September 2021. This report will therefore look at the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB from September 2021 up to the landlord’s final stage 2 response of 14 October 2022. While some of the issues the resident reported in the previous cases are of the same nature as those reported within the scope of this investigation, we will not review matters that the Ombudsman has already decided on.
In the landlord’s final complaint response it reconsidered the resident’s restated concerns about the conduct of its staff. The landlord referred the resident back to its previous complaint responses and said that it would not revisit these matters as they had already been addressed within its complaints process. This advice was in keeping with the landlord’s complaint procedure. In the resident’s submissions to the Ombudsman, she stated that she had further concerns about staff conduct following information she had received in a subject access request on 23 November 2022. The resident was of the view that the landlord should address the issues as its complaints policy states that it will consider matters if the resident has only just become aware of an issue. This matter post-dates the landlord’s final response of 14 October 2022 and is therefore outside of the scope of this investigation. However, this Service will consider staff conduct when assessing the landlord’s response to the matters that the resident had reported in so far as it is indicative of the housing services the landlord is responsible for.
This Service is aware that the resident has submitted a further complaint to the landlord in October 2023 about a neighbour’s use of a Ring doorbell and further ASB matters. The landlord issued a stage 2 response to the resident on 5 December 2023. These matters are outside of the scope of this investigation and will be assessed under complaint reference 202337893.
The landlord relied on the intervention and support of the local authority community safety and enforcement team when responding to matters of noise nuisance. Where evidence of this is provided it is referred to as the ‘local authority.’ During a conversation held with this Service on 4 April 2024 the resident confirmed that she had raised her concerns about the local authority’s response to the noise nuisance reports with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and has received a response to those matters separately.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy says the landlord will work in partnership with residents, statutory services, local authorities, community safety partnerships, and other external agencies to tackle ASB. It will use a range of preventative measures, early intervention, signposting to mediation services and legal action to tackle ASB. It considers mediation, good neighbour agreements and acceptable behaviour contracts are effective ways of reaching compromises in disputes. Where the power to lead an investigation lies with the police or the local authority, it will support the investigation and take any necessary supporting action. It will not usually take action where a complaint concerns behaviour that results from different lifestyles, or which would not generally be considered to be unreasonable. It will only investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours. It will agree an action plan with the complainant and any witnesses and keep them informed of the actions it takes. The procedure says that once a course of action is agreed, the case manager is to monitor the case and update the complainant accordingly.
The landlord’s fire safety policy says the landlord provides residents with information about fire safety and that it considers a resident’s individual characteristics when managing fire safety arrangements.
The landlord’s estate management policy says communal areas are hallways, landings, bin areas, stairs, and shared doorways. It provides an estate management service for sites with communal areas which are normally paid for by a service charge. It will consult with residents when it introduces or changes services, or if they request new services or changes to services.
The landlord’s compensation and remedies guidance policy says compensation payments and other remedies are considered when a resident has experienced a delay, or if it has failed to carry out a service within its published guidelines, or not handled a complaint properly. It offers up to £250 for time, trouble, and inconvenience due to a minor disruption, up to £100 for minor complaint handling failings and up to £200 for moderate complaint handling failings.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy which says stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days. It also says that it will not respond to complaints about matters that have already been determined under the complaints policy or a Housing Ombudsman decision.
Paragraph 4.2 of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) says landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint within the complaint acknowledgement. Paragraph 5.6 says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practise where appropriate. Paragraph 5.7 says if a resident raises additional complaints during the investigation and after a stage 1 response has been issued these should be logged as a new complaint. Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16 of the Code say that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint and any reasons for the decisions made.

Summary of events

The landlord recorded notes of a conversation it held with the resident on 28 May 2021. The landlord noted that the resident had requested steps from the first floor as a fire exit due to her mobility problems and that if there was a fire she would not be mobile enough to quickly get to the ground floor.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 June 2022 to enquire about the progress of her request for a fire escape.
The landlord redirected the resident’s request for a fire escape to be installed in the property to different staff members between 23 July 2021 and 27 July 2021.
The landlord’s fire safety team sent an internal email on 2 August 2021 that said a person-centred risk assessment (PCRA) would be required which may lead to a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) for the resident.
The neighbourhood manager emailed the fire safety team on 24 August 2021 to ask about the requirement to complete a PCRA which he had not been trained to complete. He said that this was something fire safety officer should do and not something he would progress.
The fire safety team sent an internal email on 25 October 2021 that explained PCRAs should be completed when the landlord is aware of a difficulty a resident may have evacuating a property. It said that it would offer support to complete the forms if required.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 November 2021 to enquire about the progress of her request for a fire escape. The fire safety team sent an internal email later the same day which asked if the neighbourhood team had assessed the evacuation needs of the resident using a PCRA.
The landlord contacted the resident on 16 November 2021 to discuss her request for a fire escape. The resident said that she was concerned that she would not be able to safely exit the building in the event of a fire. The landlord sent an internal email the next day that said no one seemed to be taking ownership or providing the resident with an update about the matter.
The landlord emailed the resident on 30 November 2021 to confirm that it had made arrangements with her neighbour to clear the garden. It also said that it had previously explained that the communal areas were a shared responsibility.
The resident completed ASB incident diary sheets detailing incidents of noise transference and the use of cannabis between 29 November 2021 and 10 December 2021. The resident provided the diary sheets to the landlord on 14 December 2021.
The landlord opened a new ASB case on 17 December 2021 following the receipt of ‘constant calls and emails’ that the resident’s neighbour was playing loud bass music.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 December 2021 to report noise nuisance from her neighbour. She said that whenever she reported concerns her neighbour counter-acted with vicious allegations about her which were convincing and caused confusion but, because her neighbour was vulnerable, the landlord ‘let it take precedence over her behaviour.’ She also said that since the landlord had laid carpets the noise nuisance had increased.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 December 2021 to report noise nuisance from loud music. The landlord asked her to speak to her neighbour, but the resident said that she did not want to as she would make false allegations about her.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 January 2022 to report noise nuisance from her neighbour.
The resident emailed completed diary sheets to the landlord on 10 January 2022 covering the period 17 December 2021 to 1 January 2022. The resident said this was the third set of diary sheets she had submitted and that nothing seemed to be getting done.
The resident phoned the landlord on 10 January 2022 to report that the resident’s neighbour had wired speakers into the garden on 1 and 7 January 2022 that had caused noise nuisance. She also said that she wished her case to be escalated as no action had been put in place. She further stated that a named member of staff had managed to sort out many of the ASB issues she had experienced for over 2 years within 6 weeks, but the actions he had recommended were not actioned when he handed the case over.
The landlord replied to the resident later the same day and said that it was due to meet the resident’s neighbour later the same week to address the reports of loud music and to ask her to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC). It also advised the resident to report noise nuisance matters to the local authority noise team and the use of cannabis to the police.
The resident emailed the landlord again on the same day and said:
1. Its policy stated that she would be updated, and actions plans would be agreed with her, but this had only happened with a named staff member.
2. She had previously proposed that the communal cleaning should be split so that she cleaned the inside, and her neighbour cleaned the outside, but that this had not been addressed.
3. The local authority had advised her that the noise matters she had reported to it were the landlord’s responsibility and not for the local authority to manage.
4. It was the community safety team and not the police that handled reports of cannabis, but it was for the landlord to report this as a referral.
5. Sound measuring equipment (SME) had been promised 5 months previously and she had been told to contact the landlord when the resident had returned from her travels, but no one had responded to the message she had sent.
6. She would like SME to be installed for 6 months or more and asked if the landlord could install CCTV for over a year.
The landlord replied to the resident later the same day to say that it disagreed with her perception about its handling of her ASB case and that if she wished to make a complaint she could do so in the usual way.
The landlord held an email conversation with the resident on 14 January 2022 about the use of an ABC which it said it would like to discuss with her during a meeting it had arranged for 17 January 2022. The landlord explained that the ABC was a standard form that would be used to create uniformity for both neighbours. It apologised for the short notice which it said was due to a very busy period and said that it could reschedule the appointment if she was unavailable.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 15 January 2022 which said that it had not informed her of her neighbour’s counter allegations of ASB prior to drafting an ABC for her to sign. She also said that the landlord’s drafting of an ABC without hearing her side of the story was biased and showed favouritism towards her neighbour. The resident said that the landlord was supposed to have asked her neighbour to sign an ABC and install SME which had not happened and that her neighbour’s use of cannabis, loud music, and her use of an outside canopy should be added to her neighbour’s ABC. She asked the landlord why it had refused her suggestion for the neighbours to split the responsibility for cleaning the inside and outside areas.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 16 January 2022 about its proposal to use a ‘unified ABC’. She said that if her neighbour had had to sign the same agreement as her then it meant that the landlord had not addressed her loud music and cannabis use. If it had resolved these issues at the very beginning, her neighbour would have had no reason to make counter allegations. Her neighbour had not denied that she played music or smoked cannabis, because she felt that her music was not loud and said that the cannabis was for medical use. The resident said that her doctor had notified the landlord in writing that prescription cannabis was in a non-smelling liquid format. However, her neighbour was smoking skunk in its raw form with her visitors, which was social, and she found it hard to believe that they were all smoking it for medical purposes. She said that she had not approached her neighbour in person for 3 years and not in writing for 18 months despite receiving advice from the landlord to “knock on her neighbour’s door and tell her to keep it down” when she had reported matters to it.
The landlord visited both properties on 17 January 2022 to arrange for them to sign ABCs it had prepared. The resident did not sign the ABC and the landlord noted that it received ‘at least 2 calls and an email a day’ from the resident about the same issues but that she was not willing to comply on her part.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 18 January 2022 about the details of the ABC. She said:
1. The landlord had never previously discussed with her why she was not a good neighbour.
2. She had not had any contact with her neighbour, so why was she being asked to sign a condition included on the ABC about this matter and how was something she was not doing anti-social.
3. She was unwilling to accept an amendment to the ABC about the times she could use her washing machine as the landlord had never asked her neighbour to play her music at specific times.
4. Considering how she moved about, not to jump, stomp and make excessive noise was not ASB and she could hear her neighbour stomping, walking, and using her phone.
5. Every day noise was not considered anti-social, so why was the landlord saying that this was unacceptable behaviour.
6. She did not understand why she had to sign an ABC saying she had to keep the communal areas clean and free from litter because she had been complaining about the neighbour not doing this for 3 years.
7. She had been unwilling to sign a document that was based upon allegations that were untrue or things that were not do-able.
An advice service sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on behalf of the resident on 20 January 2022. The email said that the dispute that had been investigated previously by this Service had still not been resolved. This related to:
1. The use of sound recording equipment.
2. The responsibility of the landlord and environmental health team in addressing noise nuisance matters.
3. Clarification about which parts of the external areas of the property had been considered communal.
4. The use of a rota to designate cleaning arrangements between the neighbours.
5. The use of an ABC between the neighbours to address ASB issues.
6. The installation of a side door as a fire escape.
7. The use of cannabis and the impact this had on the resident’s use of her home.
8. A short notice appointment to sign a second ABC.
9. The limited communication provided by the landlord to the resident about her ASB reports.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 January 2022 and said that it would review the matter and be in touch.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 24 January 2022 to confirm the receipt of diary sheets she had previously submitted. It also said that it would arrange for her case worker to contact her about the ASB matters she had reported in 9 different emails which it had attached to one case reference.
The police emailed the landlord on 30 January 2022 to ask the landlord what it was doing to address the ASB matters due to concerns it had about the situation. The police reported that both parties had said that the ABC was not resolving the issues. The police said that it hoped that the landlord could address the matters as a civil matter, with the appropriate levels of mental health support and because police intervention would not be ideal.
The landlord emailed the police on 1 February 2022 to say that it had used CCTV cameras, paid for mediation twice with a third session to be confirmed, installed carpets, underlay and had completed home visits.
The local authority sent an email to the landlord on 3 February 2022 to request that the case was added to its antisocial behaviour action panel (ASBAP) meeting the following week. The email said that it wished to serve noise abatement notices on both parties following a review of evidence it had seen of both parties causing disturbance to each other.
The landlord conducted a case review meeting on 9 February 2022. It suggested that rehousing her neighbour would only be considered as a last resort. It would install SME, advise the resident about its ASB procedures again and ask the neighbour to keep the music volume down.
The local authority sent a letter to the resident on 15 February 2022. The letter confirmed that her case had been discussed at the ASBAP meeting on 9 February 2022 and that a warning letter had been sent to both parties. The letter asked the resident to check her washing machine was working properly. It also said that it would issue an abatement notice if it witnessed a statutory nuisance.
The resident submitted copies of ASB diary sheets covering the period 1 – 15 February 2022 to the landlord on an undisclosed date after 15 February 2022.
The landlord completed a review of the ASB case on 16 February 2022 and agreed to contact the contractor about the installation of SME. It also agreed to arrange a further mediation session for the residents.
The landlord emailed the resident on 21 February 2022 to confirm that it had received copies of the diary sheets she had sent in.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 3 March 2022 that said she was distressed that the landlord took her neighbour’s allegations as the truth and did not allow her to tell her truth. She said that it had already found her guilty by allegation and had not bothered to hear her side of the story and didn’t believe her.
The landlord sent an internal email on 11 March 2022 that said that the resident’s neighbour might be on the lookout for anything happening and thereby intentionally reduce the volume if she got any hint of installation of SME in the resident’s property.
The resident emailed a washing machine test report to the local authority on 14 March 2022. The report said that the operative had assessed the washing machine and the flooring in the property and found there to be no damage. It recommended sound proofing between the property floors.
The mediation service wrote to the landlord on 30 March 2022 to confirm that the resident had confirmed that she was willing to engage with mediation. However her neighbour had declined to engage with the process and therefore the service had gone as far as it could in helping the neighbouring residents.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 April 2022 to say that it would prefer to have SME installed after sound proofing work had been completed. She also said that 2 weeks was not enough time for the use of the SME. The landlord replied to the resident later the same day to say that it was not its policy to complete soundproofing works in the property. It also said that 2 weeks was a sufficient amount of time for SME to capture persistent noise incidents.
The advice service sent an email to the landlord on 5 April 2022 to ask it to provide a response to the stage 1 complaint it had raised on the resident’s behalf on 20 January 2022 within 7 days. The landlord replied later the same day to say that it was going to ask the resident’s representative to agree to operate as a single point of contact moving forward because it could not meet the resident’s expectations.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 April 2022 to report that her neighbour had been fumigating her house with cannabis smoke and had pointed a camera in her face. She said that when she had asked her neighbour not to film her, her neighbour replied to say that she would do everything it took to get her out. She said that her neighbour had been told not to film her by the police on 29 January 2022, but she had not complied with this. She had also been playing loud music again after being quiet for a couple of weeks.
The landlord reviewed the ASB case on 21 April 2022 and agreed to progress actions from an inter-agency meeting it was due to attend on 8 May 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 April 2022 to raise concerns about the handling of her ASB case. She said that there was bias shown against her due to a previous complaint she had made about a staff member, and that she felt she was not treated fairly or reasonably because of this and had been deemed to be a trouble maker. The landlord replied to the resident on 25 April 2022 to say that it had asked both neighbours to sign ABCs as allegations had been made on both sides and that it did not deem her to be a trouble maker. The landlord asked the resident to provide more details about why she had felt there was bias so that it could investigate the matter further.
The landlord sent an internal email on 25 April 2022 to postpone the installation of SME until the resident’s neighbour returned to the property and for the resident to let it know when this happened.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 25 May 2022. The landlord said that the complaint was about: the approach taken by 2 staff members, one of which the resident said was biased against her and the other the resident said had spoken to her unprofessionally the previous year; advice provided to the customer hub not to open new ASB cases; cleaning of the communal areas of the building, and the landlord’s failure to respond to an email that had been sent to it on 20 January 2022. The landlord said:
1. The 2 staff members referred to had been objective and impartial in their investigations since 2019 but had made decisions that the resident had disagreed with. This did not mean that they had acted in favour of the resident’s neighbour and there was no evidence of bias.
2. It restated apologies that had been provided during a conversation that it previously held with the resident on 25 June 2021 about the way a named staff member had spoken to her.
3. The 2 staff members had advised the customer hub to register new reports on an existing case reference so that all reports and evidence were held correctly together.
4. It had met with the resident’s representative and the local authority on 11 May 2022, and they had agreed to offer mediation, ask the resident to sign an ABC and install SME in the property.
5. Cleaning communal areas was a matter for the residents to agree amongst themselves and that it was not possible for the landlord to enforce a rota system as this was not covered in its tenancy agreements. However, it could arrange for its contractors to clean if the residents agreed to the service charge costs.
6. A named staff member had responded to the resident on 11 May 2022 after meeting with her representative and local authority and that it was best to have discussed these issues with the 2 parties before issuing its complaint response and apologised for this delay.
7. The landlord said that it did not uphold the complaint as matters had been addressed in the correct manner. It provided information about how to escalate the complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 May 2022 to ask for a meeting to discuss the stage 1 complaint response. The landlord and resident held email conversations during June 2022 and agreed for a joint meeting to be held on 1 July 2022 with the 2 staff members that had been managing the case as they were the most knowledgeable and had been leading on the ASB issues.
The landlord completed a review of the ASB case on 29 May 2022. It agreed to revise the ABC, install SME when the neighbour returned to the property and to arrange a final mediation session.
The landlord completed a review of the ASB case on 30 June 2022. It agreed to write to the resident to confirm that sound proofing would not be completed and that this would not be looked at again. It also said that it would ask the contractor to contact the resident to discuss its availability to install SME.
The landlord sent an internal email on 1 July 2022 following a meeting it had held with the resident the same day. It said:
1. It had explained to her that 2 weeks was sufficient amount of time to monitor for noise but that it would consider a professional witness or a second install afterwards if significant ASB resumed.
2. It had clarified that 2 named staff members had asked for her reports to be logged under the same reference number and not as new cases.
3. She had asked for an update about her request for a fire escape which had not been actioned and that she had been told that her housing officer did not lead on this and that she should contact the local authority to arrange an occupation therapist assessment.
4. She said that she had only been offered SME recently and not for the 3 years previously.
5. She also asked what the tenancy agreements said about the responsibility for the maintenance of the front garden as she considered this to be the neighbour’s responsibility.
The landlord emailed a response to the resident on 9 July 2022 to address the additional questions that the resident had raised on 1 July 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 July 2022 to say that she had been advised previously that it would consider using a professional witness and whether this could be used to address the drug smoking issues as the local authority, police and safer neighbourhood team had been unable to assist.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 23 July 2022 in response to the landlord’s email of 9 July 2022. The resident copied the landlord’s paragraphs onto the email and made additional comments. The resident raised concerns about delays in the installation of SME, requested further clarification about the communal spaces and cleaning of these areas, raised concerns about the management of her ASB case and the investigations that had been completed by staff including inappropriate comments that had been made during previous years. She also said that during her housing officer’s 6-week absence a different housing officer had resolved her 2-year complaint within 6 weeks.
The landlord sent an acknowledgement to the resident on 2 August 2022 to confirm that it would respond to her by 12 August 2022.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 13 August 2022. The landlord said:
1. It had made arrangements for all reports to be registered on one case reference rather than opening new cases and that this matter was closed.
2. It did not recall saying there was no money in relation to the installation of noise metering equipment as this was commonly used in noise cases and there was a budget available to pay for it.
3. Both residents were responsible for the upkeep of the front garden, and it was up to both residents to agree on this as had previously been explained in its stage 1 response of 22 May 2022.
4. Its staff had carried out a thorough and impartial investigation and would not be removed from the case but that if she was unhappy she could escalate the matter to stage 2.
5. Remaining actions were for SME to be installed and for the resident to sign the ABC.
6. Cannabis use needed to be reported to the police and if arrests were made it could use this as evidence for tenancy enforcement action.
7. It the resident was dissatisfied with the response she could escalate the matter to stage 2 of the complaint procedure.
The landlord completed an ASB case review on 23 August 2022 and said it would prepare a new ABC ready for approval prior to issuing it. It also said that it would find out a date for the installation of SME.
The landlord sent an internal email on 30 August 2022 following a case review it held the same day. The email said the resident had asked for SME to be installed when her neighbour had returned to the property but that the resident had not contacted it yet. It had since asked the metering equipment company to contact the resident and arrange for the installation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 September 2022 to ask the landlord to call her so that she could make a complaint.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 22 September 2022 to ask if she was available the next day to discuss her complaint because it had become convoluted. The purpose of the call would be to obtain some clarity because the numbered points that had been made in the original complaint provided by her representative had all been answered in May 2022. But additional points had been added to the complaint during a meeting it had held on 1 July 2022.
The landlord reviewed the ASB case on 27 September 2022 and agreed to finalise an ABC and send this out to the resident and monitor the matter and consider closing the case.
The landlord sent an email on 5 October 2022 that said that the resident had inserted new matters into the stage 2 complaint. The landlord listed these as complaints about the designation of communal areas, the installation of a side door fire exit and the short notice provided for her to sign an ABC.
The landlord sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 14 October 2022. The landlord said:
1. It could only consider complaints that had been made to it within 6 months of when the problem occurred or when the resident became aware of the matter.
2. The representative had asked it to install SME for 6 – 12 months but that the maximum period was 2 weeks.
3. The resident had wanted soundproofing to be installed beforehand which the landlord had not agreed to, but it had agreed to lay carpets in the property to help with noise transference.
4. It had received results from the independent SME provider which determined that there was no unreasonable noise disturbance. A letter with further advice would be issued shortly.
5. It could have offered the SME sooner than it did and so offered an apology and £50 for any inconvenience caused.
6. The resident should report any noise nuisance or ASB to the landlord in the first instance but that good practice also stated that incidents should be reported to the police and local authority depending on the type and intensity of the ASB.
7. The landlord, local authority and the police were all aware of the incidents and had attempted to resolve the issues following the usual processes but had not been able to resolve the matters in a way that entirely suited the resident and her neighbour.
8. It had asked the neighbour to be mindful of the impact of her smoking.
9. It had previously explained that the external areas were deemed communal. It had set out that residents are responsible for the communal cleaning but that it could arrange for this to be completed with a service charge cost. The outside space provided access to the main front door and to store the bins. Therefore the outside space was communal, and the resident and her neighbour were responsible for its upkeep. However, given the relationship between the neighbour, it was reasonable for the resident to avoid maintaining a grassy area below the window.
10. It had previously confirmed that it would not fit an additional fire escape as this would be a significant undertaking in the property. However, it would complete a PEEP for the household in the event of a fire. This matter had not been raised in a previous complaint as had been stated but if she could provide any evidence that a fire escape had been agreed it would consider this as poor complaint handling because it would not build an additional fire escape.
11. It could not request a resident to wear headphones when listening to music or remove parts of the audio equipment.
12. If there was evidence of unreasonable noise at unreasonable times it would investigate this in line with the appropriate policy.
13. It apologised that the resident had been asked to accommodate a home visit at short notice as 48 hours should have be provided in advance of this. Residents could choose whether they provide short, notice access and if not an alternative appointment would be arranged. It would not ask her to provide short notice access again.
14. It restated advice it had provided in its previous response that said there had not been any issues with staff conduct but that the matter had become particularly complex and had resulted in the use of ABCs, mediation, individual meetings and meetings with the police, local authority, and the advice service.
15. It made a compensation award of £100 for its complaint handling as it had escalated the complaint to stage 2 at an earlier stage in the process and £150 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
The resident referred the matter to this Service for investigation on 18 October 2022.

Events that took place after the completion of the internal complaint procedure.

The resident confirmed during a conversation she held with the Service on 18 May 2023 that the landlord had attended the property to complete a fire safety assessment on an undisclosed date in April 2023.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 31 May 2023 specifically about fire safety in the property. The letter confirmed that it had made a decision not to install an external fire escape and signposted the resident to the local authority for rehousing.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about an acceptable behaviour contract that was issued in January 2022 at a meeting that was conducted at short notice.

The landlord emailed the resident on 14 January 2022 to arrange a meeting the next working day to discuss an ABC it had prepared ready for the resident to sign. The email apologised for the short notice and said that if the appointment was not suitable it could rearrange it for a more convenient time. It was reasonable for the landlord to have given the resident the option to rearrange the appointment in the circumstances. Furthermore in its complaint response the landlord recognised its own failings in not giving 48 hours’ notice of the appointment and apologised to the resident. The landlord also explained that it had taken action to ensure its neighbourhood team kept to the appropriate notice. Whilst the landlord made the appointment at short-notice and not in keeping with its own guidelines, it provided advice to indicate it was prepared to respond to the needs of the resident by changing the appointment.
When considering the use of the ABC the landlord did not consult with the resident about the contents of the contract prior to preparing it and asking her to sign it. This gave the resident the impression that the landlord had shown bias towards her and had relied on the accounts of the neighbour without verifying the matters with the resident. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have discussed the purpose of the ABC with the resident in advance of the meeting so as to ensure it accurately reflected the circumstances. This caused the distress to the resident which she expressed in emails and conversations she held with the landlord afterwards, and in her complaint.
The resident raised her concerns about the terms of the ABC in an email she sent to the landlord on 15 January 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the comments she had made, or replied to her to clarify the conditions, or if it would take an alternative approach to the use of the ABC for managing the neighbour dispute. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have communicated with the resident before and after the ABC meeting. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have regained the resident’s confidence in its use of an ABC for controlling ASB matters.
The landlord addressed its use of an ABC in its final complaint response of October 2022 during which it explained that it would consider asking the neighbours to sign an updated ABC. The landlord did not provide an apology for its handling of the matters and the distress it had caused to the resident in January 2022. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have recognised the distress that had been caused by its actions, and its failure to respond to her questions about the conditions that had been included in the ABC.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about an ABC that was issued in January 2022 at a meeting that was conducted at short notice.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for clarification on what areas it designated as communal.

The landlord sent an email to the resident on 30 November 2021 that said it had previously confirmed that the communal areas were a shared responsibility. However the resident raised the matter with the landlord again on 10 January 2022 due to ongoing concerns she had about the matter. The resident asked the landlord to arrange for the neighbours to split the responsibilities between them. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response to the resident’s suggestion prior to visiting her to discuss its use of an ABC on 17 January 2022.
The landlord added a condition within the ABC that said the resident was to play her part in assisting in keeping the communal areas clean free and tidy from litter picking and wiping down surfaces in and around the communal areas of the shared house. The landlord indicated that it had taken a unified approach to the use of the ABC so as to suggest that the same condition had been used on her neighbour’s ABC. It was reasonable for the landlord to have included this condition in the ABCs, given it had previously explained to the resident that the cleaning responsibility was shared between the neighbours. However the landlord did not ensure that the resident understood that including the condition did not mean it thought that she had not been cleaning the property, rather that it ensured that both residents understood their responsibilities equally. This resulted in the resident raising concerns about the landlord’s inclusion of the condition in later communications. This could have been avoided if the landlord had been clearer about the stated aims of the ABC.
The landlord addressed the matter again in its stage 1 complaint response in which it said that it could not implement a rota system as this was not covered in its tenancy agreements and that it was a matter for the residents to agree themselves. The landlord recognised that there was a dispute between the neighbours and offered to arrange for its own contractors to complete the cleaning which would incur a service charge. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain this to the resident, furthermore for it to have taken a solution focussed approach to the matter by suggesting it could take on the cleaning responsibilities. However, it is evident that the neighbour declined to agree to the associated service charge costs when the landlord consulted with her which it was obligated to do under its estate management policy. This resulted in the landlord withdrawing the proposals which was reasonable in the circumstances.
In its final stage 2 response the landlord stated that the outside space that provided access to the front door and to store bins was communal and that the resident and her neighbour were jointly responsible for its upkeep. It further clarified that it had considered implementing a cleaning service which would incur a service charge cost. It was reasonable for the landlord to reiterate the advice it had previously provided in its final response.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for clarification on what areas it designated as communal.
We note that in our previous determination report dated 31 May 2023 we ordered the landlord to provide clarity about the cleaning responsibilities to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of the report. The landlord confirmed that it had provided advice to the resident in compliance with the order on 11 July 2023.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour after September 2021.

It is evident that the 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. Furthermore, there are elements of the landlord’s handling of ASB that overlap with matters that have previously been addressed in separate reports and are therefore omitted in this report as determinations have already been reached. This includes the landlord’s handling of mediation and the installation of SME prior to September 2021, as well as the neighbour’s use of the communal front door and a canopy in her garden.
It is evident that when responding to the reports of ASB the landlord undertook a series of actions. It:
1. Opened a new ASB case on 17 December 2021 following what it described as ‘constant calls and emails’ from the resident.
2. Sought to use an ABC to tackle the neighbour dispute.
3. Liaised with the police and local authority and the resident’s representative during its management of the case and attended ASBAP meetings.
4. Completed monthly ASB case reviews internally involving the housing officer and housing manager.
5. Laid carpets and underlay in the property to limit noise transference.
6. Offered mediation and the installation of SME.
7. Discussed the use of a professional witness to assess the noise nuisance.
It was appropriate and in keeping with its policy for the landlord to have engaged with the police and the local authority throughout the case so as to provide a joined-up approach to the matters. It also acted appropriately in attending an ASB action planning meeting to agree a strategic way forward.
It was reasonable for the landlord to have used an ABC to address the reports of ASB. However as previously outlined, the landlord’s implementation of the ABC, including its intended purpose and the conditions it contained was not communicated appropriately.
It is not clear when the landlord laid carpets and underlay in the property, but it was referred to in various email exchanges and in the stage 2 complaint response. It was reasonable for the landlord to have laid carpet as a form of sound proofing in recognition of the noise transference between the properties.
It is evident that the use of mediation was delayed due to COVID-19 and later resulted in one of the residents withdrawing from the process. However it was in keeping with its policy for the landlord to have referred the residents to mediation as an opportunity for them to find a structured way forward.
It was appropriate and in keeping with its ASB policy for the landlord to have opened an ASB file and for it to have completed monthly case reviews. However, this Service has not seen evidence of the case file, nor any letters, notes of conversations it held with the resident, or actions plans it had agreed with her. The ASB policy sets out that this was an expected aspect of case management it was therefore inappropriate for the landlord not to have progressed the ASB case in accordance with the policy. The resident confirmed that the landlord had not communicated with her on 10 January 2022 and asked for her case to be escalated. The landlord’s handling of knowledge and information is addressed later in this report.
The landlord had established that the neighbour’s use of cannabis was for medical purposes in 2019. This was addressed in our previous reports. However on 16 January 2022, and within the scope of this investigation, the resident reported that the smell of cannabis and the communal setting it was being used within suggested it was being used recreationally. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided some clarity to the resident about what it could and could not do in response to her reports of cannabis use. It would also have been appropriate for it to have investigated the matter with the resident so as to reduce the impact the smell of cannabis had on her. The landlord outlined that it could take tenancy enforcement action if the police had taken action in its response of 13 August 2022. However this advice was provided 7 months after she raised the matter with the landlord and after she confirmed that she had been reporting matters to the police who had not taken any significant action. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to have responded to the resident’s reports given that she said that the smell of cannabis had permeated into her property.
The landlord reviewed its handling of the ASB case in its complaint responses during which it recognised and apologised for its delay in arranging for SME and awarded a compensation payment of £50. It also said that there had been no evidence of bias or inappropriate conduct following its review of the matters. However, it is evident that the landlord retained limited records and failed to provide evidence to this Service of conversations that it had held with the resident, visits it completed to respond to and investigate her ASB reports, letters it sent to update her on the opening and progress of her ASB case, and/or agreements it had reached with the resident during action plan discussions it should have held with her in line with its policy. Whilst the landlord indicated that it had completed an assessment of the evidence that had been available in its complaint responses, it is unclear if it had considered the lack of evidence in the ASB investigation. These matters are indicative of poor case management by the staff conducting the investigation. This was further exemplified by statements made by the resident in emails dated 10 January 2022 and 23 July 2022 that suggested that a different staff member had been able to find a resolution to the matters she had reported for over 2 years, within a short timeframe. She also said that the recommendations he had made had not been pursued when the case was handed back to her housing officer.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will 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.
The landlord recognised and apologised for its delay in arranging for SME and awarded a compensation payment of £50, however it failed it recognise its additional ASB failings in case management and communication and therefore its award of compensation was not proportionate to the time and trouble, distress, and inconvenience that had been caused to the resident. A further award of compensation is therefore ordered below.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour after September 2021.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an additional fire escape.

The resident held a conversation with the landlord on 28 May 2021 about the lack of a fire escape from the property. It is evident that the exit route from the property was through the front door and down the stairs. The resident reported that she had mobility issues which the landlord has recorded on its databases. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s request.
The landlord passed the investigation into the matter between its neighbourhood team and fire safety team for a period of 6 months until 12 November 2021. During this time the landlord failed to provide any updates to the resident but suggested that a risk assessment should be completed. The landlord raised internal concerns about staff training, the responsibility for completing assessments and the types of assessment that were required. This delayed an assessment being completed and the landlord making a decision about the resident’s request. No assessments were completed during this time, despite the resident chasing the landlord for a response twice. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to have had a process in place for assessing these types health and safety matters, furthermore for it not to have completed an assessment its fire safety team had said was required in line with its fire safety policy.
The matter was raised in the resident’s stage 1 complaint in January 2022 but was not addressed by the landlord in its complaint response of May 2022. This left the resident without an answer to the complaint and without an assessment of any health and safety risks.
During a meeting it held with the resident on 1 July 2022, and in an email it subsequently sent to the resident, the landlord said that her housing officer did not lead on this matter and that she would need to contact the local authority for an OT assessment to be completed. It was inappropriate for the landlord to have advised that it was not its responsibility to complete a fire safety assessment given that its fire safety team had indicated it should be completed.
There is no evidence that the landlord addressed the matter again until its final complaint response of October 2022 in which the landlord said it had already confirmed that it would not fit a fire escape as this would be a significant undertaking, but that it would complete a PEEP. There is no evidence that the landlord had told the resident that it would not fit a fire escape. Furthermore, it was unreasonable for it to have taken 17 months to agree to complete an assessment at the property. This caused time and trouble to the resident in pursuing a response as well as distress and inconvenience.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that a side door was not installed as an additional fire escape.
It is evident that the landlord completed the assessment in April 2023, which was 23 months after the resident reported the matter to the landlord and a further 6 months after it had agreed to complete the PEEP. This assessment was completed by a different staff member than her housing officer.

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. Acknowledged the stage 1 complaint by saying it would be in touch instead of providing a clear timescale for the response to be provided.
2. Provided a response to the stage 1 complaint 115 working days later than the 10-day timescales stated in its policy.
3. Did not fully address all of the matters that had been raised in the complaint, such as the request for a fire escape.
4. Sent an acknowledgement email to the resident on 2 August 2022 following the receipt of an email she had sent on 23 July 2022. The acknowledgement did not indicate that the matter had been recorded as a complaint in line with its policy and the Code. Nor did it set out its understanding of the complaint and/or the stage of the complaint.
5. Provided a response to the resident on 13 August 2022 that indicated that the resident’s email of 23 July 2022 had been addressed as a stage 1 complaint, despite referring to matters that it had already responded to in a stage 1 response of 25 May 2022.
6. Said that the resident had added new matters to the stage 2 complaint in an internal email it had sent on 5 October 2022 but responded to those matters in the stage 2 response instead of creating a new stage 1 complaint in line with the Code.
7. Did not refer to the date that it had accepted or received the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It is not clear to this Service what date the landlord considered it had received the stage 2 complaint, or an escalation request from the resident.
8. Indicated that it may have escalated the complaint to stage 2 at an earlier stage in the process, and that it’s stage 2 response had been delayed.
9. Did not indicate whether it upheld the stage 2 complaint.
The landlord reviewed it complaint handling in its stage 2 complaint response and provided an apology and a compensation award of £100. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an apology and a compensation award) had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
The landlord recognised a delay in responding to the stage 2 response and that it may have inappropriately escalated the matter, but it failed to acknowledge its significant delay in providing a response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It also did not acknowledge its inappropriate management of the complaint and the confusion it had caused by issuing 2 stage 1 responses. Given the significant delay and number of failings the amount of compensation that the landlord offered was not proportionate to the time and trouble that incurred by the resident. An increased award of compensation is therefore awarded below.

The landlord’s management of knowledge and information.

It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail without which we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as an ASB case file and/or recorded actions plans, enforcement letters, notes of interviews along with other items and records that evidence how the landlord responded to the ASB. In this particular case the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information received. However, the omissions indicate poor knowledge and information management by the landlord as it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. Taking all matters into account this Service therefore finds service failure in the landlord’s management and handling of knowledge and information.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the ABC that was issued in January 2022 at a meeting that was conducted at short notice.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for clarification on what areas it designated as communal.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour after September 2021.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an additional fire escape.
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.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s management of knowledge and information.

Reasons

The landlord did not appropriately consult with the resident prior to, and after it had set up a meeting to implement the use of an ABC for managing the neighbour dispute. This gave the resident the impression that it had taken a biased approach to the ASB concerns that had been reported by both neighbours.
The landlord provided the resident with appropriate advice about the designation of the communal areas in emails and in its complaint responses. The landlord referred to its estate management policies and the tenancy agreement when assessing the communal area. The landlord was unable to implement a cleaning regime due to the rejection of the associated service charge costs.
The landlord considered its handling of the ASB case in its complaint responses but failed it recognise and apologise for its ASB failings in case management and communication, in addressing the impact of noise and cannabis on the resident. The landlord also failed to an award of compensation that was proportionate to the time and trouble, distress, and inconvenience that had been caused to the resident.
The landlord did not have an appropriate procedure in place for assessing fire safety risks which resulted in an unreasonable delay in agreeing to complete a fire risk assessment that it had considered was necessary.
The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code during its handling of the resident’s complaints. It also failed to sufficiently investigate its own complaint handling and therefore award a proportionate level of compensation.
The landlord failed to provide sufficient evidence to this Service that evidenced the steps it had undertaken to respond to the resident’s reports of ASB, despite this Service making a request for these records for this complaint investigation.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in its use of an ABC, its management of the resident’s ASB reports, its handling of a request for a fire escape, and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided in writing within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
In addition to any previous compensation issued and within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1250 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £200 for distress and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s use of an acceptable behaviour contract in January 2022.
2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour after September 2021.
3. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an additional fire escape.
4. £250 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

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

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to review any fire safety assessments it has completed for the property so as to ensure that the arrangements it has in place are appropriate and in keeping with its fire safety procedures. The landlord is further ordered to write to the resident outlining the procedures she should follow in the event of a fire with reference to her disabilities.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to review any complaints it has received relating to fire escapes/personal emergency evacuation plans from the last year to ensure it has provided adequate redress and identify any additional lessons for how it handles these cases.

Knowledge and Information Management

In July 2023 the landlord carried out a self-assessment against the recommendations contained in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management. Therefore, we have not made any wider order.