Peabody Trust (201914735)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914735

Peabody Trust

15 December 2020

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 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 the resident’s reports about:

Its decision to not install a pram shed at the property;
anti–social behaviour (ASB) at the premises;
the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured non-shorthold tenant of the landlord at the property, a maisonette with 4 bedrooms. The resident has lived in the property since 26 April 2010 and is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a registered social landlord.

The landlord operates a two-stage formal complaints policy, the policy aims to resolve any dissatisfaction within set time periods. If a resident makes a complaint the landlord will try and resolve this issue locally at a pre complaint stage. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response they can ask for the issue to be escalated to a formal stage one complaint. The landlord aims to provide a written response to a stage one complaint within 10 working days. The resident then has 10 days to escalate the complaint to the review stage of the complaints procedure if they are unhappy with the outcome. A resident can only escalate their complaint to Stage 2, the Authority’s Regulation and Review Committee stage, at the discretion of the landlord’s Senior Complaints Officer. If the complaint is not accepted by the review committee the landlord Customer Experience Team will provide a written review within 15 working days.

Section 4.12 of the landlord’s tenants’ right to make improvements policy states ‘permission for improvements must be requested by the tenant in writing, and permission for any improvements must be confirmed in writing by the landlord. Verbal permission is not acceptable’.

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy defines ASB as ‘verbal abuse, harassment, intimidation or threatening behaviour; substance misuse, cultivating drugs or drug dealing; repeated prolonged high-level noise nuisance’.

Section 4.6 of the landlord’s ASB policy states that ‘we will respond to reports of high risk ASB within one working day and lower risk cases within five working days (Monday to Friday).

Section 4.13 of the landlord’s ASB policy states that ‘we will agree on an action plan with the complainant to keep them informed of the actions we take and we will contact them when we close a case, giving our reasons for doing so’.

The landlord’s compensation policy states under section 3.1 that compensation payments are made when a person has experienced a delay ‘because of a service failure on the landlord’s part or if they have failed to carry out a service within their published guidelines’. This includes a failure to meet agreed standards of service and poor complaint handling.

The landlord’s compensation policy which applies to assured non-shorthold tenants highlights under section 7 that general compensation is available for ‘time trouble and inconvenience caused’ up to a maximum £400. The policy also states that compensation is available for poor complaints handling ‘up to a maximum of £100’ for a severe failure.

summary of events

On 28 November 2019, the landlord and resident met to discuss the long running dispute between the resident and their downstairs neighbour. The landlord provided minutes on 31 December 2019, indicating that the parties discussed the following issues:

Cannabis smoking – the landlord informed the resident that her neighbour is using it on a professional recommendation and cannot discuss further as it is confidential. The neighbour had committed to only smoking in the garden to reduce the impact on the resident.
Locking the security door at the property – the landlord investigated the complaint and the neighbour assured the landlord that she locks the door. The landlord agreed to meet with the neighbour in the new year and reiterate the importance of locking the door.
Rubbish being left next to the bin – the landlord to provide an extra bin for the neighbour.
Sound proofing the property – due to the nature and scope of the works required the landlord stated that it was not within its policies to do such works.
Installation of pram shed – the landlord upheld the decision not to install the pram shed stating the only place to install it would be on common property next to her neighbour’s kitchen and back garden. The regular contact between the two parties would only worsen the already strained relationship as both parties have stated that they want to keep contact with the other ‘to a minimum’.
Security camera at the property – the landlord would consider the legality before determining a way forward.
Counter allegations – the landlord put to the resident allegations from the neighbour including harassment, intimidation, disparaging comments and excessive noise. The resident accepted her grandchildren’s noise but strongly denied all other allegations.
Acceptable Behaviour Contract – the resident refused to sign an acceptable behaviour contract as it could imply that she had done something wrong. The landlord agreed to talk with the neighbour regarding mediation in January 2020 and try to establish a joint action plan.

On 13 January 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and asked for the escalation of the issue regarding the pram shed to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident raised that it had previously granted permission before the neighbour took up residence at the property. The resident argued that the decision not to install the shed was based on ‘not true and unproven’ allegations of ASB. The resident stated that the pram shed would not interfere with the neighbour as it was closer to the bin area than their kitchen.

On 20 February 2020, the resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman stating that she was having trouble escalating her complaint through the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident stated that the landlord would not deal with her stage two complaint verbally. The Ombudsman informed her that it was best to communicate in writing when possible and to contact the landlord directly and as per its complaints policy, once submitted the landlord would need to acknowledge the Stage 2 complaint within 3 working days.

On 10 March 2020, the landlord issued a reviewed formal stage one response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord outlined that it provided a response to the decision regarding the pram shed in relation to the ASB complaint that was raised in the summer of 2019. The landlord highlighted that it wrote to the resident on 31 December 2019, with the outcome that included reasons for rescinding the decision to offer a pram shed. The reasons included the proximity to the neighbour’s kitchen/back garden and if a pram shed was installed there it would not help already strained relations between the two parties. The landlord advised that the original decision to install the pram shed was made in error and the landlord apologised for the mistake and offered the resident £50 compensation for the discretionary inconvenience caused.

On 10 March 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord asking for escalation to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident asked for a review on the following grounds:

The pram shed – an officer of the landlord had previously granted permission for the pram shed to be built and the cost covered by the landlord. The resident stated that the landlord verbally agreed to honour the original offer but this was rescinded. The resident disagrees that the area is next to the neighbour’s kitchen but in fact behind the bin area and it is unfair that the landlord had only offered to review the decision in six months. The resident said that it was unfair that not only would the landlord not pay for the pram shed as promised but it would not allow her to install her own pram shed as it is on the common property.
Counter allegations of ASB – the resident stated that she believes the landlord portrayed her as an aggressive troublemaker which she said was unkind and untrue. The resident proposed that the counter allegations were made after her neighbour was given a warning by police about smoking cannabis.
Landlord’s complaint handling – the resident stated that she raised issues of ASB in June 2019, and they were only addressed in November 2019. The resident is of the belief that the landlord’s staff were sticking up for each other and do not offer apologies or staff training when it has been in the wrong.

The landlord responded to the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage two on the same day. The landlord advised that the response would be completed by the landlord’s Customer Experience Team on or before the 8 April 2020.

On 24 April 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that her neighbour was not abiding by the oral action plan that the landlord put in place. The resident complained about the following:

loud bass music coming from her neighbour property;
the neighbour smoking cannabis inside their property;
The neighbour not locking the security door.

On 29 April 2020, the resident reported loud bass music from her neighbour over a five hour period. The landlord responded the same day and said that it had spoken with the neighbour who acknowledged that they had played music and that it was ‘at an acceptable level and within reasonable hours’.

On 29 May 2020, the Housing Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and explained that it had been contacted by the resident who was not happy with the way that her matter was being handled and has not received her stage two response. The Ombudsman sought clarification as to where the issues were up to in its complaints process and asked if the landlord could respond to the complaint as per its complaints policy.

On 29 May 2020, the landlord wrote to the Ombudsman and advised that it was currently working on the resident’s stage two response. The landlord explained that there had been a delay due to the interdepartmental correspondence and the vast number of documents the resident had emailed to the landlord that needed consideration.

On 18 June 2020, the landlord issued the resident with a stage two review. The landlord addressed the following issues:

The pram shed – the landlord acknowledged that a previous member of staff agreed to pay for the installation of the pram shed but after they left the decision was reviewed. Due to a breakdown in the relationship between the two residents the pram shed was no longer viable as it would restrict access of a communal area to the benefit of one tenant. The resident was notified of the decision in writing on 31 December 2019, following a meeting with the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the frustration about not having a pram shed installed but due to the change in circumstances the decision was rescinded.
ASB at the property – the landlord acknowledges that there had been multiple reports of ASB from the resident. The landlord stated that it attempted to address the issue by implementing an action plan inline with its ASB policy. The landlord said that the resident reported loud music coming from the neighbour on a number of occasions and that these were taken seriously and recorded on the landlord’s system. The landlord raised counter accusations against the resident including harassment and noise and nuisance and highlighted that is why the resident was asked to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Contract which they declined. The landlord argued that this was not an admission of guilt but to maintain future behavior that is acceptable. The landlord had proposed mediation but the neighbour was not willing to consent. The resident was advised to report any future incidences of ASB so records can be updated.
Cannabis – the landlord advised that the neighbour had agreed to smoke cannabis within the confines of their garden at the property. Her use of the substance is based on professional recommendation; details of which cannot be disclosed. The landlord advised that if the resident suspected inappropriate actions were taking place in respect of the cannabis smoking, they should contact the police, as it was a criminal matter.
CCTV at the property – the landlord had been informed the CCTV had been installed at the property and the landlord would monitor and review activity more quickly.
Soundproofing – the landlord agreed to contact the resident once it was operating outside of its Pandemic Response Programme which manages the Covid-19 situation.
The landlord’s complaint handling – the landlord apologised to the resident if they felt as though they had not been listened to. The landlord stated that the resident’s reports of ASB had been listed correctly in its system. The landlord acknowledged that it may appear that not enough action has been taken but the landlord assured the resident that it had followed its policy by collating a substantial amount of information in case legal action can be considered. The landlord requested a review of its internal processes as part of developing staff and improving its services to residents.
Compensation – the landlord accepted that both the stage one response and stage two responses were provided much later than the complaints policy guidelines and therefore awarded the resident £100. The landlord also offered the resident $50 for the time and trouble for the inconvenience caused in pursuing her concerns.
Panel hearing – the landlord informed the resident that their complaint did not meet the criteria set out in its complaints policy and therefore this was the end of the landlord’s complaints process.

On 19 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to its stage two response. The resident stated that she was never given a copy of the action plan that the landlord referenced and that she was only verbally informed about the action plan and never given any updates. The resident reiterated her distress and inconvenience regarding the noise levels coming from her neighbour and stated that noise monitoring equipment should be installed in the residence. The resident also raised her neighbour smoking cannabis and the smoke coming into her apartment. The resident explained her reasons for not signing the behaviour contract and her issue with the conduct of the landlord’s officers.

On 25 June 2020, the landlord contacted the resident in regard to the phone conversation on 19 June 2020. The resident expressed that the landlord was taking their neighbours side and the decision not to allow the pram shed was all based on false allegations from the neighbour. The landlord assured the resident that this was not the case.

On 15 October 2020, the landlord organised mediation which was attended by the resident and her neighbour. A number of ASB issues were discussed at the meeting although little progress was made to the resolution of the issues. The residents were informed that they may contact the mediation service directly to resolve further issues.

Assessment and findings

The decision not to install a pram shed at the property

It is accepted by all parties that the landlord offered to install a pram shed at the property and cover the associated costs. The evidence suggests that there were reports of ASB between the resident and the neighbour which led the landlord to rescind the offer to install the pram shed. It is the landlord’s obligation to repair broken items at the property however the installation of a pram shed would be an improvement that the landlord was not obligated to perform. The landlord’s tenants’ right to make improvements policy states that if the resident wants to make such an improvement they need to seek written approval from the landlord, the documentation provided suggests this did not occur. The right to improve also usually only applies within the property and does not include communal or shared spaces. These improvements are at the landlords discretion and only with the agreement of all parties.

It is acknowledged that once ASB issues started to arise between the resident and the neighbour the landlord thought it would be best not to make the situation worse by installing a pram shed. The evidence provided demonstrates that the landlord explained to the resident that installing the pram shed would likely lead to the neighbours having more contact. It is accepted that both parties agreed that they wanted minimal contact with each other, and the installation of a pram shed on common property had the potential to make an ASB situation worse. Even though one officer agreed to the pram shed, the landlord is not bound by that decision and its later decision to withdraw the offer was one that it was entitled to make.

Due to the issues of ASB, the landlord also made the decision not to allow the resident to install their own pram shed at any location on the property. The landlord argued that as it is a common shared space, it would not be fair to allow one resident to install a pram shed that would restrict access of a communal area to the benefit of one tenant. The resident raised that the neighbour did not use the space required however it is not a matter of if the resident uses the space, it is a common area and therefore cannot be limited for the benefit of one resident. It is not within the Ombudsman’s scope to order a landlord to complete such an improvement however it is noted that the landlord had agreed to review the decision after a six-month period. It is accepted that the offer by the landlord of £50 was fair and proportionate in relation to the perceived loss by the resident.

Anti-social behaviour at the premises

The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not; the Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The landlord acknowledges that there were a number of complaints from the resident regarding the ASB of her neighbour. The landlord had an obligation under its ASB policy to address all reports of ASB. The resident clearly expressed strong dissatisfaction regarding the landlord’s handling of her ASB allegations.

The landlord’s ASB policy states that residents will be asked to sign Acceptable Behaviour Contracts in the case of cross allegations between residents. From the evidence provided it is clear that the actions of the landlord were appropriate when it asked both parties to sign this contract, however when approached by the landlord the resident refused to sign and no further action was taken. The landlord took reasonable steps to reassure the resident that signing the contract was not an admission of guilt and was aimed to maintain positive behavior going forward. In line with the landlord’s policies the option of mediation between the parties was offered by the landlord on 28 November 2019, as one party was unwilling the exercise was not able to be performed. It is understood that mediation organised by the landlord did take place on 15 October 2020, however no successful outcome was reached and no further action has been taken.

The landlord had an obligation under its ASB policy to respond to reports of high risk ASB within one working day and lower risk cases within five working days. The landlord highlighted that it had taken all reports of ASB seriously and all incidents that were reported by the resident were entered into its system even if action wasn’t taken. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on the the 11 September 2020 and again on 8 October 2020 asking for the landlord to provide its records concerning the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord failed to provide any such reports to the Ombudsman. Accordingly, there is no evidence that the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy in response to the resident’s reports.

Under the landlord’s ASB policy the landlord was responsible for the implementation of an action plan with the resident to keep them informed of the actions that it had taken. The resident stated that they created a verbal action plan with the landlord but never received a written plan. The landlord was asked for documentation relating to the issue but as above in paragraph 28. Accordingly, there is no evidence that the Landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy in regards to providing an action plan to the resident.

From the evidence provided for review, the landlord did engage with some aspects of its ASB policy around loud noise and cannabis use by the neighbour. The landlord however failed to provide evidence that they fulfilled all of their obligations under the ASB policy. It should be highlighted that the landlord did not acknowledge reports of the ASB within the required time frame for low risk cases under its ASB policy. Furthermore, the landlord did not take reasonable steps to put the situation right and offer compensation for its failures.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, if the resident makes a complaint at the first stage the landlord should acknowledge within three working days and formally respond within 10 working days. The documentation provided shows the initial complaint by the resident on 28 November 2019, and the landlord supplying a formal response on 31 December 2019. This demonstrates a 14-day delay in providing the stage one response to the resident. The resident asked for a review of the decision on the 13 January 2020. The landlord failed to progress the complaint and provided a reviewed stage one response on 10 March 2020, this was not in accordance with the landlords procedures and demonstrates a failure in its complaints process. This represents a two-month delay in providing the resident with the review of their complaint. The resident then asked for escalation of the issue to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 10 March 2020. The landlord provided a stage two review on 18 June 2020, signifying a 3-month delay.

There is a clear failure on behalf of the landlord in regard to the multiple delays in its response to the resident’s complaint. It is accepted that the landlord did offer the resident £100 for the delay at stage one and two of its complaints procedure, however, due to the length of time that the complaint had been delayed on several occasions and the distress and inconvenience cause to the resident the amount is not proportionate to the landlords failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident in relation to the landlord’s decision to not install a pram shed at the property.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the complaint about anti-social behaviour at the premises.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not have an obligation to install a pram shed at the property. the landlord was within its rights to review the decision even before the reports of ASB at the property. The landlord made the resident aware of the reasons for the change in decision and offered reasonable compensation for the inconvenience. It is acknowledged that the resident disagrees with the decision, however the Ombudsman cannot order the landlord to install a pram shed on common property for the exclusive use of one resident.

It is clear that the landlord did not comply with its ASB policy when dealing with the ASB issues raised by the resident. The landlord failed to provide evidence that it had acknowledged and logged reports within the correct time frames and failed to provide the Ombudsman with the documentation when asked on two separate occasions. The landlord furthermore failed to provide the resident with a written action plan that would have clearly set out what action it had taken and was taking in response to those allegations.

The complaints handling by the landlord was not in line with its internal policies. The landlord failed to complete stage one and two of the complaints procedure within the correct 10 and 15 day time frames and failed to adequately communicate with the resident about the delay. The landlord also delayed the process by providing the resident with two formal stage one responses instead of automatically escalating to stage two of its complaints procedure.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £450 comprising:

£100 as offered by the landlord in its stage two response.
£150 in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the complaint about anti-social behaviour at the premises.
£200 in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the highlighted complaint handling delays.

This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £150.

The landlord is to make this payment to the resident within 4 weeks and to update this service when payment has been made.

The landlord is to confirm its compliance with the above orders to this Service within the targets set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord ensures that it responds to the Ombudsman’s requests for information
Provide staff training on anti-social behaviour to ensure that incidences are logged and responded to within the required time frames.
In six months, the landlord should look at reviewing the decision in regard to the pram shed to measure its future viability.
The landlord should keep its agreement to contact the resident once it is operating outside of its Pandemic Response Programme to assess soundproofing the property.
The landlord should use this complaint as a learning exercise to identify where it can improve its procedures and communication in regards to its Anti Social Behaviour Policy.
Review its complaints policy – earlier this year the Ombudsman published a Complaint Handling Code which provides a framework for high-quality complaint handling and greater consistency across landlords’ complaint procedures. This applies to all members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It will enable landlords to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. It sets out good practice for the sector that will allow landlords to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code will help residents in knowing what to expect from their landlord when they make a complaint and how to progress their complaint. Non-compliance with the Code could result in the Ombudsman issuing complaint handling failure orders. The Code can be found here: https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/ComplaintHandling-Code.pdf