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

Take part in the consultation

Peabody Trust (202417776)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417776

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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Increases in service charges, including for property insurance.
    2. Estate management.
    3. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. 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. One of the resident’s complaint grounds is about increased service charges, including for property insurance.
  3. Paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in our opinion, are concerning the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of a rent or service charge increase. These issues are more appropriately considered by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT) which can make a binding decision on the level or reasonableness of a charge. We therefore have not made a determination on this complaint ground. However, we are able to consider how the landlord communicated and handled the resident’s complaint about the service charges, including for property insurance.

 

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The lease started on 1 August 1995. The resident has told the landlord that she has mental health challenges. The landlord’s record lists her vulnerabilities. The resident has been assisted with her interactions with the landlord and this service by a representative. When we refer to the resident in this determination sometimes it was her representative acting on her behalf.
  2. The resident sent the landlord a letter on 27 January 2024. She told the landlord that she had mental health issues. She raised concerns about property insurance, communal cleaning, gardening, window cleaning, satellite/digital TV, communal lighting and issues about the drains/condition of the carpark.
  3. The resident sent a letter to the landlord on 4 March 2024. She said that her letter of 15 January 2024 “amounted to stage 1 of the complaints process”. She noted that she had not received a complaint acknowledgement or complaint reference number. She said that she was unhappy that she had received a phone call, even though she had told the landlord in her letter that she had mental health issues. She set out further concerns about the estate management of the communal areas. She set out concerns about the landlord’s complaints handling, property insurance increase and maintenance services.
  4. The resident sent the landlord a letter on 6 April 2024. She reiterated that her previous letters had constituted complaints in accordance with the landlord’s complaints process and noted that she had still not received a formal response. She set out the details of her complaint again and included diary records of her estate management observations.
  5. The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 24 April 2024. It set out that:

Previous complaint

  1. It had not found any records of the resident raising a previous complaint. It would be happy to review if the resident could give any further information about the complaint she said she sent.

Estate management issues

  1. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the way the estate was being cleaned and maintained. It confirmed that:
    1. The stairs were cleaned weekly. On the next visit the team would focus on the communal stairs and take photos.
    2. Litter was picked every Thursday. It asked the resident to specify where she had specific concerns and it could address these.
    3. The internal and external windows were cleaned on 20 March 2024 to help cleaners who could not reach because of the layout of the windows. It had been agreed that this would be done for all cleans.
    4. The gardening service was fortnightly but there had been recent resource issues because of sickness and recruitment. Extra works was being done to get on top of it. The additional hours would not be charged.
    5. Gave the resident specific contact details to raise concerns about the estate management.
    6. It offered the resident £175 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience in relation to issues raised about the state of cleaning and maintenance.

Increase in property insurance and service charge costs

  1. It explained its approach to calculating service charges.
  2. It said that it attached a factsheet explaining why the property insurance had increased.

Satellite charge

  1. It could not find any records of issues being reported about satellite/digital TV. It gave the resident information on where to report issues.

Issues with communal lighting

  1. It had repaired communal lighting in the alleyway when issues had been reported.

Issue with blocked drain in carpark

  1. It could not find issues had been reported to it about the drain and slope. It had now reported issues to the council to deal with and was working with its internal legal team to confirm responsibilities.

Complaint handling

  1. It acknowledged that there had been a delayed complaint response and offered the resident £50 compensation for this.
  1. The resident responded on 29 April 2024. In her response she:
    1. Included copies of complaint letters sent on 27 January, 4 March and 6 January 2024. She reiterated her dissatisfaction with how the landlord had handled her complaints.
    2. Confirmed her unhappiness about the estate cleaning and maintenance, including gardening. She acknowledged that there had been efforts to improve the gardening maintenance. She remained concerned about litter picking and communal cleaning.
    3. Reiterated her unhappiness about the buildings insurance.
    4. Set out again that she was unhappy that for several years she had not enjoyed her TV as the screen freezes because of poor signal from the communal aerial.
    5. Acknowledged that the communal lighting in the alleyway had been fixed but it had taken 18 months to fix it and it was not upgraded.
    6. Queried why the council needed to be involved in the drains and carpark.
    7. Said that the compensation offered by the landlord was insulting.
  2. On 1 May 2024 the landlord responded to the resident (at the email address of her representative). It:
    1. Acknowledged the copies of the letters the resident had sent it. It apologised it had not responded and said it would compensate her for this.
    2. Gave the resident individual contact details for issues with estate cleaning and maintenance, including gardening.
    3. Acknowledged the resident’s frustration about the increase in the buildings insurance but said that there were several reasons for this. It apologised for not including the factsheet previously but attached it this time and explained that external factors had increased the cost of the insurance cover.
    4. Acknowledged the resident’s unhappiness with the satellite and gave her information on how to report the fault directly.
    5. Said that records showed that when reports about lighting with the alleyway had been reported they had been fixed. It asked the resident for job numbers for faults that had not been repaired for 18 months.
    6. Confirmed its previous advice that it was working with its legal team and its view was that the council was responsible for the car park slope and drains.
    7. Increased its offer of compensation from £225 to £300.
  3. The resident responded on 10 May 2024 saying that she was dissatisfied with the response.
  4. The landlord gave the resident a stage two complaint response on 8 July 2024. It said:

Previous complaint

  1. It could not find any previous complaints by the resident logged in its system. It asked the resident to provide information on how and when she complained.

Estate management issues

  1. Confirmed that there was a regular cleaning service and it was inspected on a monthly basis. It was satisfied that there was a good level of service.
  2. Litter was picked weekly. However, there would always be some litter in the between days.
  3. There was a regular window cleaning schedule and issues about accessibility of some of the windows had been addressed.
  4. The gardening service was fortnightly. There were some issues at the start of the year due to staff shortages. Additional hours had been worked at no additional cost to residents to address this. It apologised for this and said it would take this into account in determining compensation. It upheld the resident’s complaint about gardening issues at the beginning of the year.

Increase in property insurance and service charge costs

  1. It explained its approach to service charges.
  2. It explained that when it merged with the previous landlord it was not able to continue the existing low insurance premiums. It noted that insurance premiums had risen across all sectors, and the costs were outside its control.

Satellite charge

  1. It could not find any records of issues being reported about satellite/digital TV and that is why it had not taken any action.

Issues with communal lighting

  1. When reports had been made about the communal lighting in the alleyway it had done repairs promptly and within expected timelines.

Issue with blocked drain in carpark

  1. It could not see that issues had been reported to it before, but it had now reported it to the council to deal with.

Complaint handling

  1. It upheld the resident’s complaint about the delays in dealing with her complaint.
  2. It offered the resident a total of £275 compensation for the complaint delays and gardening failings.

Assessment and findings

Estate Management

  1. The resident is unhappy about a number of aspects of the landlord’s estate management. We start from the position that we would expect the landlord to keep the estate in a reasonable condition. We would also expect it to respond to reasonable repairs requests and issues raised by the resident promptly.
  2. We find that there were failings with the landlord’s handling of gardening at the start of 2024. The landlord has acknowledged this and explained that this was because of resourcing issues. We are satisfied that the evidence indicates that it took steps to address this and remedied the problems without additional cost to leaseholders. It gave the resident individual contact details to report concerns and offered to pay compensation. The compensation it offered in its stage two complaint response was £275 for complaint handling failings and the gardening failings – it did not allocate a specific amount for the gardening failings. We consider below whether this was reasonable redress.
  3. We do not find that there were further failings with the landlord’s estate management. The evidence shows that there have been regular cleaning and litter picking services which the landlord monitors. It is not reasonable to expect these to be daily, and it is inevitable that there will be some litter or other mess in between services. The landlord addressed the concerns the resident raised about the window cleaning. The evidence does not show that there were failings with respect to repair to communal lighting. It indicates that the landlord attended to repairs to lighting within reasonable timeframes. The landlord was also reasonable to engage its legal team and, subject to this advice, refer issues with the carpark to the council. The records do not indicate that the resident raised issues about satellites being interfered with on the estate, or any other evidence that there were faults with the satellite that the landlord could repair but did not.
  4. The evidence also shows that the landlord communicated with the resident in a reasonable manner about the concerns she raised. For example, on 12 July 2023 the landlord sent an email responding to the resident’s concerns which provided comprehensive responses to the numerous concerns she had raised. We are satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the concerns the resident had raised. This includes acknowledging that there were issues with the grounds maintenance that were being addressed and confirming that actions had been taken to progress works on the drains.
  5. Overall we find that there were failings by the landlord with respect to its estate management. We consider below whether the landlord has provided reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident is also unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her complaint.
  2. We find that there have been a number of complaint handling failings.
  3. The landlord failed to begin the complaint process when the resident told it she wanted to make a complaint. We are satisfied that the resident’s letter dated 27 January 2024 can be considered to have been a complaint. An internal landlord record indicates that it received a detailed letter from the resident on 22 February 2024 and a case was opened that day. It is possible postal delays attributed to this timeframe. The landlord reviewed the complaint and an appropriate response was proposed internally. However, it did not progress a complaint response to the resident. It is not clear why.
  4. Another case was opened by landlord on 8 April 2024, which referred to a “full email complaint” received on 15 March 2024. No further internal steps are recorded until 17 April 2024, when it began internal investigations. This was a further unreasonable delay in starting the complaint process. The resident did not receive a first stage complaint response until 24 April 2024. Even if we take 22 February 2024 as the start date for the complaint process, this is clearly unreasonable.
  5. The landlord said in its stage one and stage two complaint responses that it did not have a record of a complaint before the one logged on 8 April 2024 (which was presumably the March 2024 letter). It is not clear why the landlord did not refer to the February complaint log it had a record of. In its email to the resident of 1 May 2024, it acknowledged the copies of the letters that the resident had sent and that it had not responded to these. However, in its stage two complaint response it reverted to its position that it could not find any previous complaint response and it did not acknowledge the copies of the letters the resident had sent it. This was a clear failing.
  6. The landlord also took an unreasonable time to give the resident its stage two complaint response. The resident told the landlord on 10 May 2024 that she was unhappy with its response. We find that the landlord should have taken that as notice to escalate the complaint to stage two. However, it did not record the complaint as being escalated until 20 May 2024. It then did not send the resident an acknowledgment of escalation until 10 June 2024. It apologised for the delay in allocating it. It said that it aimed to provide a stage two response within 20 working days. It gave the resident the stage two complaint response slightly outside this timeframe. It mishandled the stage two complaint process.
  7. The landlord’s email response of 1 May 2024 appeared to be responding to the resident’s complaint points and made an offer of £300 in compensation. However this reply was not presented as a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord then subsequently issued a formal stage 2 reply in July but offered £275 in compensation. In our view this was confusing. While the landlord gave broadly the same response in both replies, it offered slightly different levels of compensation, and the 1 May reply was not presented as a stage 2 response. This meant that the landlord effectively introduced an additional stage in its complaints procedure. This would have been confusing for the resident, who was already dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication and it not recognising her complaints.
  8. The landlord failed to attach the factsheet on property insurance to its stage one complaint response. It attached it to its email on 1 May 2024. This was a minor failing however. When it did provide the information, we are satisfied this was comprehensive. The evidence shows that the landlord communicated with the resident on other occasions about her concerns about the service charges, including property insurance charges, in a reasonable manner.

Landlord’s compensation offer

  1. In its stage two complaint response the landlord offered the resident £275 compensation for complaint handling and gardening failings – it did not allocate individual failing amounts. We have considered whether this was reasonable redress. To do this we have assumed that the landlord intended to apportion its offer evenly between the two areas where it had identified failings
  2. We understand that the resident has been distressed by the maintenance of the garden. However, the evidence does not show that her enjoyment of her property or the estate was significantly compromised. Further, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to address the issues and the resident has individual contact details to report issues.
  3. We also understand that the landlord’s complaint failings have caused the resident distress. It was frustrating that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s repeated notices of a complaint. This was compounded by its later failures to acknowledge this in its complaint responses. The delays in providing both stage one and stage two complaint responses also understandably caused distress, and the additional response before the stage 2 reply was confusing. However we have also taken into account that the complaint handling delays caused distress in themselves but they did not prolong any substantive failings in estate management.
  4. We therefore consider that £275 is reasonable compensation overall for the landlord’s failings. If the landlord has not already paid this to the resident it should now do so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with section 42.d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman finds that the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s increases in service charges, including for property insurance, is outside our jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman finds that there has been an offer of reasonable redress by the landlord with respect to its estate management.
  3. In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman finds that there has been an offer of reasonable redress by the landlord with respect to its complaint handling.