Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Peabody Trust (202417283)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417283

Peabody Trust

29 August 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 request for a new communal front door.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been the shared ownership leaseholder of the property since 19 June 1999. The property is a 2-bedroom flat within a block.
  2. The resident complained on 12 February 2024. She said that:
    1. The communal front door had been damaged during a break-in and robbery the previous November.
    2. The landlord had repaired the door rather than replacing it and it was now easy to open with only slight force.
    3. Following the break-in some residents in the block had installed doorbell cameras and closed-circuit television (CCTV) signs.
    4. A new fob activated door and entry system was needed and the landlord should order one, funded by the sinking fund.
    5. She provided 3 police crime numbers from November 2023, December 2023, and January 2024.
  3. The resident chased a response on 21 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 4 March 2024 and provided a stage 1 complaint response on 15 March 2024. This said that it had contacted its building services team to “agree a way forward” and it would update her within the next 2 weeks.
  4. The resident chased an update 3 times between 22 April 2024 and 21 May 2024. On 21 May 2024 the landlord provided another stage 1 complaint response. This said that the complaint handler had now spoken to the asset management, home ownership, and building services teams. It said that changing the door and locking system would be a lengthy and costly process requiring consultation with all residents in the block. It had therefore assigned the case to the neighbourhood services team.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord for an update 6 times between 11 June 2024 and 17 July 2024. On 18 July 2024 the landlord emailed her to tell her that it would not change the locks from a key to fob system because of the high costs which would have financial implications for all residents in the block.
  6. On 4 October 2024 the resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive to tell them about the ongoing issue with the security of the front communal door. A fire risk assessor contacted the resident on 9 October 2024. In an internal email following their conversation with the resident, the assessor said that they had explained to her that the communal entrance door did not need to be a fire door. The assessor felt, however, that the insecurity of the door was a fire concern due to the antisocial behaviour with unauthorised people in the block causing an increased arson risk. The assessor therefore recommended that the landlord repaired the main entrance door fully or replaced it to heighten security and reduce the risk of arson.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord for an update a further 4 times between 25 October 2024, and 18 November 2024. On 20 November 2024 the landlord sent her a letter to acknowledge that it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. It provided a stage 2 complaint response on 29 November 2024. It said that:
    1. The neighbourhood manager for the block had inspected the door and contacted the relevant department. However, they had not updated the resident which understandably made her feel that it had not taken her concerns seriously.
    2. This poor communication was a service failure and the complaint handler would provide feedback to the neighbourhood team to prevent the issue occurring again.
    3. Contractors would attend the block on 3 December 2024 to inspect the communal door. As the resident wanted to meet them it had passed her telephone number to the contractor so that they could contact her on the day.
    4. If the contractor recommended a replacement door, it would consult with all residents in the block. If the cost was more than £250 per flat. It would outline its proposal to leaseholders and shared owners through a section 20 consultation process.
    5. The homeownership team would consider using the sinking fund to replace the door.
    6. The resident had contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service who had asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 complaint response by 2 November 2024. However, it noted that she had not told her complaint handler that she was not happy with the stage 1 complaint response prior to this. It had therefore handled the complaint in line with its complaints policy but it would like to apologise for its poor communication.
    7. It would monitor the complaint until it had completed the inspection and a consultation had commenced if appropriate.
    8. It offered £225 compensation comprising:
      1. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to provide updates.
      2. £75 for time and trouble for its failure to follow up actions agreed at stage 1 of the complaints process.
  8. The resident has advised us that on 11 August 2025 the landlord told her that it had now raised a work order to replace the front door and the work would be completed within 14 weeks. She said that the landlord had also advised her that it would use the sinking fund to pay for the work.

Assessment and findings

Communal door

  1. The lease says that the landlord is responsible for renewing or repairing the main structure and all external parts of the building, including doors, subject to the leaseholder paying the relevant service charges.
  2. The landlord has provided a repair log for the block from January 2024. This shows that the communal door lock was damaged again on 31 January 2024. When the operative attended on 1 February 2024, they noted that the door was constantly being broken into and returned to replace a faulty lock release on 20 February 2024. The repairs log shows that residents reported issues with the communal front door not being secure a further 4 times throughout 2024.
  3. There is evidence that the resident asked for a front door replacement in February 2024, during the time the door was insecure. There is also evidence that she called the landlord to ask for an update on 21 February 2024 when she told it that she was feeling vulnerable and had installed her own camera. The landlord called her on 15 March 2024 to discuss the issue and promised to find out and update her within 2 weeks. However, it failed to do so meaning that the resident had to take time and trouble emailing and calling for an update.
  4. The landlord finally called the resident back again on 1 May 2024, which was nearly 3 months after her initial request. However, it still did not give her an answer. Internal emails show that the staff member dealing with the enquiry was asking for assistance from colleagues but this was not forthcoming. Therefore, the resident had to email twice more and call the landlord again costing her further time and trouble.
  5. When the landlord finally responded on 21 May 2024, it still did not provide an answer to the resident’s query. It then said that it had passed the issue to another team. However, this team did not contact the resident at all and she had to send a further 6 emails. It is apparent from these emails that this caused her considerable distress because she said that she felt the landlord was ignoring her.
  6. Finally, on 18 July 2024, the landlord answered the resident’s question with a one-line email which said that it would not consider changing the door and locks due to the high cost and financial implications for residents in the block. However, we have seen no evidence that it had consulted with the other residents in the block. Therefore, it did not know how badly they were affected by the insecure door and if they would support its replacement. Also, this response did not answer the residents query about using the sinking fund. This incomplete answer, received after 5 months of chasing was unacceptable and would have caused the resident frustration and distress. She then contacted this Service for assistance which cost her further time and trouble.
  7. An internal email dated 27 September 2024 said that following a visit from the homeownership team there was a “persistent issue with the security of the door, primarily stemming from the weak and flimsy door furniture. It is advisable to consider replacing the current door with a more robust option. This would enhance security significantly. I recommend obtaining quotes for the replacement of the door to assess financial implications to leaseholders.” However, there is no evidence that any action was taken and the resident continued to chase a response costing her further time and trouble.
  8. The resident also sent an email to the chief executive on 8 October 2024, which resulted in a fire risk assessor contacting her on 9 October 2024. Although the door was not a fire door and therefore outside the assessor’s remit, they also recommended to the landlord that the security be upgraded to reduce the risk of arson. However, the landlord did not feed this back to the resident and therefore she had to contact it again on 25 October 2024 and 3 November 2024. The chief executive’s office then explained that the issue had been passed back to the relevant team and despite the resident explaining that the reason she had contacted the chief executive was because the team were not answering her query, she had to chase a response again on 12 November 2024 and 18 November 2024.
  9. In summary, it has taken the landlord approximately 18 months to give a definite response to the resident’s request. During this time, she has taken considerable time and trouble chasing it and experienced distress and inconvenience as she was living in a property where she did not feel secure. This led to her providing security measures at her own expense. The landlord’s communication was extremely poor, and we have seen no evidence that it responded to most of the resident’s emails. Throughout this period professionals recommended a new door on more than one occasion. Although a section 20 consultation may have delayed the process, this could have been completed at a much earlier stage, or a dispensation sought. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new communal front door.
  10. The landlord offered the resident £225 compensation at stage 2 of the complaints process. However, this was not proportionate to the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failings. Therefore, we have ordered it to pay her £450 compensation to reflect this. We have also ordered it to keep her regularly updated on the progress of the fitting of the new door.

Complaints handling

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that landlords must log complaints within 5 working days of receipt. However, in this case the landlord took 16 working days to log the complaint. Furthermore, it only logged the complaint after the resident had contacted it again. This unacceptable delay therefore cost her time and trouble. It also extended the complaint handling process and delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
  2. The Code goes on to say that a complaints process with more than two stages is not acceptable under any circumstances as this will make the complaint process unduly long and delay access to the Ombudsman. However, in this case the landlord provided 2 stage 1 complaint responses.
  3. The Code also says that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. It was clear that the resident was unhappy with the progress of her complaint because she continuously contacted the landlord and also contacted the chief executive to express her dissatisfaction. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process and the resident had to take further time and trouble contacting us for assistance. This further prolonged the complaint handling process and her access to an investigation by this Service.
  4. The Code also says that all remedies offered must be followed through to completion. However, in this case the resident had to spend considerable time and trouble contacting the landlord for updates. This meant that the complaints handling process was not used to put things right.
  5. The Code also says that the complaints officer must have access to staff at all levels to facilitate the prompt resolution of complaints. They must also have the authority and autonomy to act to resolve disputes promptly and fairly. However, in this case there was evidence that the complaints handler was repeatedly contacting another department for updates, which were not forthcoming. Had they had access to a more senior member of staff the issue may have been resolved more quickly which would have alleviated the resident’s distress.
  6. In summary, there were avoidable delays in the landlord’s complaint handling and the landlord did not use the process to put things right in a timely manner. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It offered no redress for this and said in its stage 2 complaint response that it had “handled your complaint in line with our complaints policy”. We have therefore ordered it to pay the resident £200 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience its failings caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s request for a new communal front door.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this investigation.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident directly £650 compensation comprising:
    1. £450 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of her request for a new communal front door.
    2. £200 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £225 which should be deducted from the total if already paid.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must confirm in writing to the Ombudsman and the resident that it has ordered the front door and a timeframe for completion of the works. It should also confirm how it will fund the work.
  4. The landlord must update the resident fortnightly on the progress of the work and any likely delays. It should also provide a named contact to her within 4 weeks of the date of this report, so that she can contact them with any concerns.
  5. The landlord must review this case to understand and explain why the failings occurred and consider if they were limited to this case. A report should be provided to the Ombudsman regarding the findings within 10 weeks of the date of this report. The review must at a minimum include:
    1. Reasons for the poor communication and lack of response to emails.
    2. Consideration of any further training required by complaint handlers and key officers in services they are likely to be engaged with. and if so, how this will be addressed.
    3. What additional oversight measures might be put in place to avoid the failings surfaced in this case.
  6. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.