Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Peabody Trust (202201391)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201391

Peabody Trust

12 May 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
    1. Errors on the service charge accounts.
    2. The cost of repairing a leaking roof potentially being passed on to him.
    3. It not advising him when there were changes to energy charges.
    4. Water pooling on a communal walkway as a result of a disconnected drain pipe.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, a one-bedroom flat, with his wife on a shared ownership basis, since 2015. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. In December 2021 the resident raised concerns with the landlord that the service charge accounts were incorrect. In January 2022 he raised an issue with water pooling due to a drain pipe not being connected. He made a complaint to the landlord on 17 February 2022 about how every year the service charges had been miscalculated, and having difficulty communicating with the landlord and getting the issue resolved (complaint 1).
  3. Throughout April 2022 the resident chased the landlord for a response to the drainage issue and was told it would send contractors out to assess the situation. On 14 June 2022 the landlord apologised for not having addressed the service charge query from December 2021 and responded to the points raised. It provided a stage 1 response about the accuracy of service charges on 28 June 2022 and offered £50 compensation for its delay addressing the issues. It also provided the actual service charges from April 2020 to March 2021 and said the resident owed £572.52.
  4. Throughout 2022 the resident continued to query the service charge and, on 25 November 2022, the landlord explained it was still waiting for more information in order to address his queries. It thanked him for his patience and said it had made two adjustments of £76.64 in light of his new monthly estimate of £834.59 from 1 April 2022 being applied on 29 May 2022.
  5. Having received the estimated service charge for April 2023 to March 2024 on 8 March 2023, the resident said he was unhappy at getting letters saying money was due when he was still waiting to hear back from the landlord on queries raised.
  6. The resident chased the landlord again on 18 May 2023 about the drain pipe leak. On 24 May 2023 he complained that the Heat Interface Unit (HIU) tariff had been increased overnight by 1,325%, meaning it cost between £5 and £10 a day for hot water. He had found this out by chance as he was £5 in credit one day and £3 in debit the next.
  7. The resident made another complaint on 25 May 2023 (complaint 2), saying the downspout carrying rain water was not feeding into the down drain, causing the communal walkway to flood. He also complained that the service charge accounts were often wrong and that the landlord had failed to advise him about the increase in the HIU tariff.
  8. In the landlord’s stage 1 response to complaint 2 of 16 June 2023 it said:
    1. It had already raised concerns about the downspout with its latent defect team. It had chased them for an update and more time was needed to review the terms of the warranty.
    2. It reviewed the most recent year-end account booklet, the estimate for that year, and the last set of year-end accounts from the managing agent. It could not find any examples of the block being charged for services it did not benefit from. It would review that if specific examples were provided.
    3. It had contacted the managing agent for an explanation around the energy charge increase and would update the resident within 10 working days. It confirmed that compensation would be due for the delay.
  9. The resident complained about a leak in his utility room, coming from outside on 17 July 2023 (complaint 3). A report on the roof was done on 20 July 2023 which found signs of damp, and a roof inspection and clearance of outlets was to be arranged.
  10. The resident chased the landlord a number of times for it to address the utility room leak and, on 14 August 2023, it issued a stage 1 response to complaint 3. It said it had hired a company to make the case for defects against the original developer via the NHBC warranty. Its surveyor completed an initial inspection and a referral was made regarding the roof on 26 July 2023. The developer was to carry out some works week commencing 21 August 2023 but had not yet accepted the defect claim. However, it had been made aware of the water ingress issue affecting the property and it had promised to investigate further.
  11. As well as the issue of the leak, the landlord’s response addressed other issues that had been raised in the past by the resident, as follows:
    1. Service charges – It referred to an email from the resident on 24 July 2023 querying certain charges and said it would not be refunding any of them as they were all due under the terms of the lease. If a defect claim was accepted by the developer and/or NHBC it could review any items that may be linked to the claim, but the claim had not been accepted yet. It noted the resident had disputed other charges and it would address these separately.
    2. Energy charges – it had escalated this issue with the management agent and it was under investigation. Once compete, all residents would be updated.
    3. It offered £50 compensation for delays in its complaint handling (£25 for delay at stage 1 and £25 for delay at stage 2).
  12. The resident escalated complaint 3 on 15 August 2023. This was acknowledged on 21 August 2023 and, in September 2023, the landlord said there would be a delay issuing the service charge accounts. However, it would be investigating the leak despite there being concerns over it invalidating the warranty.
  13. The landlord apologised to the resident on 6 October 2023, for the delay addressing complaint 3. It said its stage 2 response should be issued by 13 October 2023, but it was not sent until 18 October 2023. The stage 2 response said:
    1. Defects/leaks – It apologised for delays in arranging and providing the outcome of the inspection, which had found the water ingress to be minor. There were signs of staining to a small area. This was due to an issue with the seal but no repairs had been done as they would invalidate the warranty. The defect team was managing the matter which involved further checks being undertaken, and a contractor had also been instructed to assess the lift shaft for any possible leaks. It accepted the repair process should have been managed more effectively by arranging the inspection sooner, involving the latent defect team from the outset, and providing the resident with the outcome of the inspection. It was sorry for any inconvenience caused. It wanted to ensure all outstanding repairs were complete before offering additional compensation.
    2. It would address service charge issues separately.
    3. Energy charges – It was still waiting for the management agent to provide the information it had requested and this had been escalated. It hoped to issue a further response by 25 October 2023.
    4. Complaint handling – Complaints had been incorrectly allocated and the complaint should have been clarified and managed more effectively. Notifications had not been issued and there had been delays. Further, an earlier complaint (unclear which) should have been escalated to stage 2. It increased its offer of compensation to £300 (£150 for stage 1 delays and £150 for stage 2 delays). It said further compensation would be confirmed for time and trouble later.
  14. On 27 October 2023 the landlord explained that, in terms of energy charges, the management agent discovered that the billing company for the block did not carry out tariff reviews. This meant residents had been undercharged for a number of years. It therefore needed to have the tariff amended to reflect what the cost of the raw gas actually was. The meters would be changed and another company would deal with the billing. It had asked for further details in terms of the tariffs and costs and aimed to issue an update by 3 November 2023.
  15. The landlord notified the resident on 3 November 2023 that a credit of £1,388.59 was due for the 2022/23 service charges. It arranged to pay him the £300 compensation on 21 November 2023.
  16. On 28 November 2023 the landlord apologised that the resident had not been updated about the leak and it would follow that up. It had asked its Homeownership Team to provide clarification around HIU tariffs and said he would be contacted about that by 6 December 2023. The resident received the information on 14 December 2023 and was told the Homeownership Team would contact him to address it in further detail.
  17. In terms of the roof leak, an inspection took place, but the landlord accepted it could have been managed more effectively and its communication could have been better. However, it was still being investigated. The resident says the leak has been fixed but he is still awaiting confirmation that the repair was covered by the warranty and there will be no charge. He said there is still an issue with the downspout not being connected, so water is pooling on the communal walkway and he has still not received updates when there have been changes to energy charges. Further, there are still issues with service charges being calculated incorrectly.

Assessment and findings

Errors on the service charge accounts

  1. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the overall management of his service charge account, specifically the landlord’s provision of information requested. He says that every year issues have been found with the accounts which have been brought to the landlord’s attention and resulted in changes being made. We are not able to assess whether service charges are accurate or reasonable, as this is for the First-tier Tribunal to do. We also cannot comment on whether the landlord is justified in taking action to pursue payment of the charges. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded to queries about the service charges in a reasonable manner.
  2. The resident was asked what specific issues he had with the service charges and he said that in:
    1. 2019/2020 there was an incorrect service charge calculation which resulted in a £108.21 refund after a complaint was made.
    2. 2020/2021 a refund of £158 was made after several queries were raised.
    3. 2023/2024 a service charge credit of £1,388.59 was made (partially covering an existing debt), but £497.85 was not refunded until after a complaint was made. Initially his enquiry was closed by the landlord and had to be reopened.
  3. We have seen earlier evidence of the landlord accepting there were inaccuracies in its service charge information, including how it had to correct a service charge deficit amount of £108.21. On 25 November 2022 it also wrote to the resident explaining it had made 2 adjustments to the service charge. While we have noted the resident has mentioned he has recently had another issue with the 2023/2024 service charge accounts, and this shows him having further issues, this is not something that has been considered in detail here. That is because it is a new issue raised after the complaint was escalated to us.
  4. The landlord has addressed the resident’s queries about service charges. However, the resident has often had to chase for information or make a complaint to get a response, which is unacceptable. It is acknowledged that errors can occur on accounts, but there were delays in the landlord addressing them. It apologised on 14 June 2022, which was appropriate, but it should not have taken the resident complaining and chasing to identify the issues. The fact there have been issues since at least 2020 indicates lessons have not been learned from earlier mistakes. We therefore recommend the landlord conducts a review of the errors made with the service charge accounts to identify areas for improvement and to prevent issues occurring in the future.
  5. On 28 June 2022 the landlord also offered the resident £50 compensation for its delay addressing the service charge issue. While it is good to see the landlord acknowledged a deficiency in its service, this sum did not adequately recognise the 6-month delay in its responding to the queries raised.
  6. Overall, there has been maladministration. The landlord went someway to remedy the issues by taking steps to address the resident’s concerns and correct the errors. It also apologised for the delay and offered compensation. While this is positive, the amount of compensation was insufficient. It took the resident time and effort to highlight anomalies in the accounts, formally complain, and chase the landlord for responses. Several months passed without any updates, which caused frustration and could have been avoided if the landlord’s communication had been better.
  7. The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy says, where there has been moderate disruption, compensation of between £201 and £400 would be reasonable. This is in line with our own remedies guidance. Therefore, to reflect the delays and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 compensation.

The cost of repairing a leaking roof being potentially being passed on to the resident

  1. The lease states the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing roof foundations and patios, the main structure of the building, and common parts. The resident has explained that the leak in to the utility room was caused by a damaged membrane on the roof, which has now been repaired. He is concerned the cost of the repair will be passed on to him as part of the service charge.
  2. It is not clear when the work was actually completed, but the landlord’s concern that it may have invalidated the NHBC warranty if it did any work on the roof without first referring the matter to the developer, was fair. It was therefore appropriate that it liaised with the developer over the issue in order to address the issue in the correct way.
  3. The only matter outstanding for the resident is whether the cost of the repair will be factored in to the service charge. The landlord has told us that it carried out repairs to the waterproofing of the roof to building and there is no longer water ingress into the property. It has confirmed it paid its contractors, and there has been no recharge to the resident as it is pursuing NHBC under the warranty. There is no evidence of maladministration and hopefully the landlord’s response should alleviate the resident’s concern.

The landlord not advising the resident when there were changes to energy charges

  1. The resident has explained there is a communal heating system that supplies the heating and hot water in the building, which all residents pay towards. In May 2023, the HIU tariff suddenly increased significantly without prior notice to the resident. He says the cost has since reduced, but he only found out about that happening from a neighbour, as he was again not notified when the tariff changed.
  2. Having been notified on 24 May 2023 that the resident was unhappy, on 16 June 2023, the landlord explained it had sought information from the management agent. By 14 August 2023 the resident was told the matter was still being investigated, but he would be contacted. There is no evidence he was.
  3. The landlord recognised there had been an oversight on 18 October 2023, but this was only due to the resident escalating the issue. While the landlord was disappointed he had not been contacted, and it was not the level of service it wanted to provide, as a complaint had been made, it should then have monitored the issue. It could have been proactive and checked whether the resident had been contacted, instead of taking a reactionary stance and waiting to be told there was still a problem before following up.
  4. The landlord told the resident it hoped to update him by 25 October 2023 and, although that was not achieved, it did contact him on 27 October 2023. It explained that people had been undercharged which led to a cost increase. However, a new billing company was going to be taking over to avoid the situation happening again. It explained it had asked the management company for details of the tariffs and costs and it hoped to update him by 3 November 2023.
  5. There was a delay providing the resident with further information. Although the landlord did so on 14 December 2023, about the gas price fluctuating, it again promised he would be contacted by the Homeownership team about the level of the charges. There is no evidence the resident was then contacted as promised.
  6. There has been maladministration here. Having identified a failure in its service and saying the resident would be contacted, the landlord could have done more to monitor the situation and follow up to avoid reoccurrences. Its service failed to improve and the resident says he continues to not be informed when the energy charges change. This is something the landlord ought to investigate. It should liaise with the management agent to put steps in place to avoid this happening again.
  7. Further, to recognise that the resident was not kept informed and his expectations were mismanaged, the landlord should pay £200 compensation. This recognises minor disruption to the resident with low impact. Even if he had been informed of the energy charges, it would not have changed the fact they were payable.

Water pooling on a communal walkway as a result of a disconnected drain pipe

  1. This issue has been ongoing since at least April 2022. The landlord sent out contractors but they were unable to find water pooling or an issue that needed addressing. The resident continued to report the issue and it formed part of complaint 2. The landlord was made aware that, due to the downspout carrying rain water not feeding into the down drain, the communal walkway was being flooded. This had led to damp and the floor near the entry door of two flats starting to curl up.
  2. The landlord responded on 16 June 2023, saying it had chased the issue with its latent defect team and it would need more time to review the terms of the warranty. It arranged for a surveyor to attend on 26 July 2023 to looked at the issue and for the developer to carry out some work week commencing 21st August 2023. However, it is not clear what work, if any, was carried out.
  3. We asked the landlord for a breakdown of all action taken in relation to the drainpipe issue, but it says it has nothing to provide. It is concerning that it either has not kept any records or is unable to locate the information requested for this investigation. It is noted the landlord was worried about carrying out repairs and invalidating the NHBC warranty, and that was a reasonable concern. However, it also said its latent defect team was dealing with the matter. The lack of evidence means it is not possible to say what action, if any, was taken to address this issue. The resident has said there is still a problem and, with the landlord unable to show it has addressed it or explained why no action is needed, we make a finding of maladministration.
  4. The evidence shows the resident raised this issue on many occasions since April 2022 and had to chase for details of the surveyor’s findings. He has suffered inconvenience and frustration for a long time, which is best addressed by the landlord paying him £300 compensation. This sum recognises moderate disruption with low impact. This is proportionate as the issue itself has not caused the resident that much inconvenience personally. Nonetheless, he was put out having to chase for information and no action being taken.
  5. The landlord is also ordered to survey the downspout and complete any necessary repairs. If it finds no repair is needed, it should explain to the resident why that is the case. In particular, he must address his query as to why the downspout is not connected to the pipe below.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will address a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy says for poor complaint handling, where there has been a minor failure with low impact, compensation of between £1 and £50 is reasonable. Where there was a moderate failure, compensation of around £51 to £150 should be considered. A severe failure with significant impact should pay compensation of about £151 to £250.
  2. Complaint 1 was made on 17 February 2022 but the stage 1 response was not issued until 28 June 2022. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation, which was appropriate.
  3. Complaint 2 was also not responded to at stage 1 within 10 working days as it should have been. After complaint 3 was made on 17 July 2023, the resident had to chase the landlord again to address the leak. He said he remained unhappy on 24 and 25 July 2023 and chased it up on 1 August 2023. The landlord apologised for not addressing the issue and the following day had to ask the resident to resend his email, which shows a lack of organisation, and is unacceptable.
  4. The landlord did then issue a stage 1 response to complaint 3 on 14 August 2023 but again this was outside of the time frames set out in its complaints policy. While it offered £50 to recognise deficiencies with its complaint handling, the repeated delays indicate the landlord was not learning from its mistakes.
  5. This is highlighted when complaint 3 was escalated to stage 2 on 15 August 2023 and the resident confirmed this again on 24 August 2023.  The landlord again failed to address the complaint in a timely fashion which is unacceptable.
  6. It is good to see the landlord acknowledged delays when they occurred, and considered compensation. A number of complaints were made by the resident over the years. All the issues investigated were put to the landlord at different times, so we are satisfied it had the opportunity to investigate them all. The responses were generally comprehensive. However, they were not timely. Bearing in mind the issues raised by the resident related to how long things were taking, it understandably added to his frustration, incurring further delays in the complaint handling.
  7. There was a shortfall in the landlord’s handling of complaints, and the cumulative effect of the numerous delays means it was right the landlord substantially increased its offer of compensation to £300. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation and remedies policy and our own remedies guidance. The landlord acknowledged failings, attempted to put things right, and the compensation offered sufficiently addressed the detriment caused. Taking that in to account, we find the landlord has made an offer which is reasonable and proportionate to resolve this part of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord:
      1. Repeatedly making errors on the service charge accounts.
      2. Failing to advise the resident when there were changes to energy charges.
      3. Handling of the resident’s report of water pooling on a communal walkway as a result of a drain pipe not being connected.
    2. No maladministration in relation to the cost of repairing a leaking roof potentially being passed on to the resident.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme there has been reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Paid the resident £800 compensation as follows:
      1. £300 for the inconvenience caused by its errors in the service charge accounts.
      2. £200 for failing to advise the resident when there were changes to energy charges.
      3. £300 for delays and inconvenience relating to water pooling on a communal walkway as a result of a drain pipe not being connected.
    2. Had the downspout surveyed and repaired if required. If a decision is made that no repair is needed, then it should explain to the resident why that is the case and specifically explain why the downspout is not connected to the pipe below.
    3. Liaised with the management agent and asked for the resident to be updated when there are changes to energy charges.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Conduct a review of the errors made with the service charge accounts in order to identify areas for improvement with the aim of preventing further issues in the future.
    2. Pay the resident the £300 compensation offered (if it has not already). This recognised a service failure in its complaint handling and the reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.