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

Peabody Trust (202211702)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211702

Peabody Trust

12 August 2025

 

Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this.

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs needed to the main gate, and as a result of these not being done, there has been an alleged issue with illegal parking and cars being abandoned.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. Having received emails from the resident about parking issues where she lived, on 15 March 2021 the landlord decided to log her concerns as a complaint. It issued its stage 1 response on 9 April 2021 and it acknowledged its communication had fallen short. It therefore offered her £75 compensation to recognise that.
  2. The complaint was escalated and the landlord’s stage 2 response was sent on 13 May 2021. It acknowledged that pursuing the gate repair and seeking clarification about actions taken regarding the parking issues, had been protracted. It apologised for this and increased its offer of compensation to £150, made up of £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience and for a delay responding to the resident’s complaint.
  3. The resident sent her complaint to us and on 14 January 2022, submitted a copy of the landlord’s stage 2 response. Unfortunately, we were unable to open it, as it was corrupted. However, it seems we did not notify her of that at the time.
  4. In November 2022 when the resident resent a copy of the landlord’s final response, we thought her complaint may be out of time. However, she reminded us that she had already sent us a copy of the complaint, and we therefore confirmed the complaint was actually in time.
  5. While this complaint was being processed, the resident submitted another complaint to us and case reference 202206909 was opened in July 2022. That complaint was about the landlord’s handling of her request to repair the main gate to the building and the associated complaint.
  6. We issued a determination on that complaint on 14 March 2024 and the report addressed issues with the gate and the linked parking issues. For example:
    1. Paragraph 11 says, “On 20 November 2021, the resident submitted a complaint online via the landlord’s portal. She advised that it was regarding an existing repair as the main gate had been broken, replaced, and subject to costly repairs for the past 8 years. She said that it had resulted in illegal parking in disabled bays, blocked emergency fire exits and reports of break-ins. The landlord had promised repairs/modifications to prevent vandalism, but this had not been honoured”.
    2. Paragraph 22 referred to the landlord’s 24 February 2022 stage 1 response to another complaint raised, and noted there had been 4 repairs reported for the main gates between July 2021 and January 2022. It also understood her frustration to be due to illegal parking and fly tipping.
    3. Paragraph 43 said, “A repair was reported on 21 July 2021, as the main gate was stuck open (thought to be due to vandalism). It was inspected on 16 August 2021 and repaired 28 October 2021 when a new motor was installed. The repair was completed in 99 calendar days after it was reported. The repair was overdue by 39 calendar days. This was not appropriate as it did not comply with the landlord’s repairs policy which states that specialist works should be completed within 60 calendar days. The resident said that this caused fly tipping and non-residents parking in disabled bays which caused the resident distress and inconvenience”.
    4. Paragraph 45 concluded the broken gate was linked to the parking issues. It said, “Whilst the repair was raised for the main gate on 14 January 2022, it had been broken since 30 October 2021. An inspection was carried out on 21 January 2022. It was found that the rubbers on both gates and both sides were damaged and needed replacing. This was sent to a ‘gate specialist’ for a quote on 4 February 2022 with repairs completed on 23 February 2022. The repair took 116 calendar days, leaving access for non-residents to park in the car park and disabled bays”.

Reasons

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the complaint is no longer within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. Paragraph 42.l of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in its opinion seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. Therefore, we need to satisfy ourselves that the issues in dispute have not already been determined.
  3. Having reviewed the determination issued on 14 March 2024 under complaint reference 202206909, it is clear that although the complaint was worded slightly differently, it addressed the same issues and the same period that have been referred to us in this complaint (case reference 202211702). The complaints have effectively crossed over and the later complaint was determined first, which has meant this complaint is now moot and falls out of jurisdiction. As a result, it would not be possible, or fair, for the Ombudsman to conduct an investigation into this complaint. Therefore, the complaint detailed at paragraph 1 above falls outside our jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42.l of the Scheme and will not be considered further.
  4. We accept that it has taken some time for the Ombudsman to reach this conclusion and we apologise for any inconvenience this has caused. Whilst the resident was notified of the jurisdictional limitations earlier in our process, it was necessary to conduct a comprehensive review of the evidence before we could confirm our position on the full complaint. Decisions of this nature can be complex and it is important that we take the time to make the correct decision.