Peabody Trust (202452171)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202452171

Peabody Trust

9 September 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 response to the resident’s reports of dog mess and rubbish in a communal drain.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

2. 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.
3. 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

4. The resident is a leaseholder of a second-floor flat in a block of 10 or more storeys. The lease started in 2014. The landlord, a housing association, owns the building.
5. The resident reported flooding to her balcony and an unpleasant odour affecting the enjoyment of her property. She said neighbours had blocked the external drainpipes by disposing of dog mess and rubbish through them. The resident reported multiple occurrences between 2020 to 2022 and said it had gone on since she moved in. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s pet policy, stating it was unfit for purpose. She also said the landlord should widen the buildings external drainpipes to prevent similar happening again.
6. In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord spoke with her neighbours who denied the allegations. It sent a warning letter to all residents of the building on 27 July 2022. And it completed a ‘door knocking’ exercise in September 2022 with the neighbourhood wardens to educate all residents. The landlord also completed work to clear the drains.
7. On 6 February 2023 the resident complained about recurring issues. She considered the landlord had not investigated the possibility of drainage improvements. Nor sent warning letters as it had previously proposed.
8. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 10 March 2023. It included a copy of a warning letter issued to all residents of the building on 9 February 2023. It also sent another warning letter on 10 March 2023. The landlord informed the resident its survey on 23 January 2023 had identified no drain blockages. However, it apologised for not communicating its surveyor’s findings. It said the drainage would require major structural alterations to the building, and it could not provide the outcome the resident asked for. The landlord said it would continue to monitor the situation.
9. In June 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response. While she acknowledged the landlord had completed repairs, she said the matter of foul water and odour remained ongoing. The landlord did not escalate her request until the resident repeated her dissatisfaction on 27 September 2023.
10. On 25 October 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It summarised its repair actions and its investigation of her concerns. It explained it did not have evidence of a specific address causing the reported issues. The landlord’s response acknowledged it should have explained its position regarding drainage improvements sooner and it identified failings with its complaint handling. It apologised and offered £195. This was made up of £95 for complaint handling failures and £100 for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience. The landlord’s stage 2 response informed the resident of the Housing Ombudsman Service and provided our contact details if she remained dissatisfied with its final response.
11. The resident continued to complain to the landlord and did not accept its offer of £195. Her correspondence continued throughout 2024 and 2025. The landlord acknowledged failings with its communication during this time and offered an additional £400 compensation. It treated this as a new and separate issue. However, the landlord reminded the resident it had provided its stage 2 final response to her original complaint in October 2023.

Reasons

12. Paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
13. On 23 March 2025 we informed the resident of our jurisdiction as she had brought her complaint to us approximately 17 months after the landlord’s final response. The resident said she was unaware of our 12 month time limit. She further explained she had maintained her dissatisfaction with the landlord, but its delays responding to her affected her ability to raise matters with us.
14. The events leading to the resident’s complaint understandably might have caused upset. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response clearly and correctly informed the resident of our service if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
15. The evidence shows the resident repeated her dissatisfaction with the landlord throughout 2024 and 2025. However, we have identified no evidence of exceptional circumstances which prevented her from bringing the complaint to us sooner.
16. Therefore, we are satisfied this matter is outside of our jurisdiction as the resident did not bring the matter to our attention within 12 months of the landlord’s final response. We encourage the resident to raise a new service request if the matter has reoccurred and for both parties to resolve any outstanding offers of redress.