Peabody Trust (202315057)

Decision
Case ID	202315057
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	10 November 2025

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. He complained to the landlord about security and anti-social behaviour (ASB) due to recurring faults with a communal car park gate and a communal door being left unlocked. Over 7 months, he submitted 6 formal complaints about poor management of communal repairs. He escalated the issue to this Service because he was dissatisfied by the landlord’s response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s management of communal areas and repairs relating to building access and security.
3. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaints management.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s management of communal areas and repairs.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints management.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not fully meet its responsibilities under its Responsive Repairs Policy to maintain safe and secure communal areas. While it took some actions, its overall response to repeated reports, complaints, and security concerns lacked a proactive and coordinated approach. The landlord missed opportunities to consult the resident, who is a leaseholder, and to implement effective solutions.
7. The landlord did not respond formally to key complaints, including those about the car park gates and unpaid compensation. Its complaint handling showed shortcomings in record keeping, missed deadlines, and unclear communication. The resident contacted this Service twice for assistance, which indicates that the complaints process was not easily accessible or consistently followed in line with the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s Code.

Putting things right

 

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order   The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 09 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: £200 for its failures in complaint handling. £250 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience for reporting and pursuing repairs to the car park gate.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 09 December 2025
3	Inspection order The landlord must arrange an inspection of the car park gate. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by an externally appointed independent surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection required.   What the inspection must achieve. The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the electronic gate mechanisms of the car park and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the gate mechanism is fit for purpose in all weathers. The underlying cause of the frequent break downs, particularly in colder weather. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full options appraisal to address the shortcomings of the current security gate mechanism and to provide a more robust security mechanism. A scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The timescales to commence and complete the work, subject to any Section 20 consultation if proposed works exceed the financial thresholds. If a Section 20 consultation is necessary, the landlord must advise this Service of its consultation plan and programme. Subject to approval, the landlord must take all steps to ensure the work recommended is completed promptly.	No later than 09 December 2025
4	Learning Order The landlord should review the complaint handling failings identified in this investigation and consider what improvements it might put in place to minimise reoccurrence of these failings.	09 December 2025

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord. Formally consult with the resident over the costs of and funding sources for potential work to improve security to the communal door to the car park. Satisfy itself that it has taken all reasonable steps to ensure the provision of a robust security barrier to the building and associated locking mechanism.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 June 2023	The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint. He complained: The car park gates were broken and there was ASB because of the lack of security. (Complaint 1)
21 July 2023	The resident contacted this Service for assistance as he had not received a response to his complaint of 8 June 2023. (Complaint 1)
8 to 25 August 2023	The resident submitted 2 complaints. A broken communal door lock. (Complaint 2) Broken exterior lighting and the time taken to resolve it. (Complaint 3) The landlord issued responses to both complaints 2 and 3 and offered compensation for trouble and inconvenience. The resident did not escalate these complaints to stage 2.
15 September 2023	This Service wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint of 8 June 2023. (Complaint 1) The landlord responded to this Service on 19 September stating it believed it had responded to the complaint. It referenced complaints 2 and 3 but did not reference complaint 1.
18 September 2023	The resident submitted a complaint via webform, which was recorded at stage 1 by the landlord. (Complaint 4). He complained: The communal door to the car park was being left unlocked by residents and was insecure. He asked the landlord to: Write to the residents to remind them to lock the door. Make the door self-locking to prioritise residents’ welfare and safety.
4 October 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: The resident had contacted it several times this year about security concerns, and it apologised for not resolving the issues sooner. It recognised its failure to act proactively and offered £50 compensation. It had reminded residents about building security and would inspect the site that week to arrange necessary door repairs.
8 November 2023	The resident complained via webform that he had not received the compensation offered on 4 October, the landlord was not responding to his emails and there were repairs (unspecified) outstanding. (Complaint 5) The landlord did not respond formally to this complaint.
29 November 2023	The landlord accepted a new complaint (Complaint 6) from the resident about faulty car park gates, which led to damage to their car due to ASB and extra insurance costs.
19 December 2023	This Service wrote to the landlord following further communication with the resident. We asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaints about: A recurring issue with the electronic car park gates. The communal entrance door situated at the rear of the building is often left open and unlocked. The resident asked the landlord to: Thoroughly investigate the electronic system and ensure that it is weatherproof. Fit the same door lock system to the rear door as the front door. We asked the landlord to respond to the resident by 18 January 2024.
22 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said it had advised residents to lock the door. It was not necessary or cost effective to modify the door.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident confirmed to this Service he was unhappy with the landlord’s response because the issues with the gate and the door were unresolved.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not consider

8. The resident raised complaints about a broken communal door lock and damaged lighting in the car park area. These were addressed by the landlord at stage 1, and the resident did not escalate to stage 2. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 22 January 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.

Complaint	The landlord’s management of communal areas relating to building access and security.
Finding	Service failure.

9. The resident’s lease confirms the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing, redecorating, renewing, and potentially improving the communal areas of the building.
10. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states it will ensure communal areas are safe and secure. Where repair costs exceed £250 per leaseholder, the landlord must follow the Section 20 consultation process under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
11. The policy sets out clear timeframes for repairs: Emergency repairs: within 4 hours during working hours or made safe within 24 hours outside working hours. Non-urgent repairs: within 28 calendar days. Programmed or specialist repairs: within 60 calendar days.
12. The landlord’s records show 15 repair logs relating to the car park gates between January and November 2023. Of these, 10 were raised by the resident. He also submitted 2 formal complaints about the gates. The landlord did not address these complaints in its responses, which meant the resident had to repeatedly follow up to ensure access to the car park was maintained. The resident expended substantial time and trouble in reporting repairs and making complaints about the gates not working as intended, so that he could freely enter and exit the car park.
13. On 7 July 2023, the resident reported being assaulted in the car park during an attempted vehicle break-in. He also raised concerns about ASB, including drug use, urination, and theft. He stated that the insecure car park had affected his car insurance and his feeling of safety at his home. The landlord responded that new sensors were needed and expressed hope that the gates would soon be operational. This response did not demonstrate that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously or considered the impact on safety and security. It also did not provide the resident with reassurance of any effective and long lasting remedy. This could not but have damaged the landlord and tenant relationship and caused frustration.
14. Between 16 January 2023 and 22 January 2024, the landlord attended the site 12 times to carry out emergency and routine repairs to the gates. While this level of attendance shows the landlord was responsive to breakdowns, the approach remained reactive. Given the frequency and nature of the issues, the landlord should have taken more proactive steps to identify and resolve the underlying problems.
15. The resident also raised concerns about the access door from the car park to the building being left unlocked by other residents. The landlord responded by writing to and visiting residents to remind them to lock the door. However, the issue continued, and the resident reported that the door was still frequently found unlocked. This shows that the action taken by the landlord was ineffective, as it did not resolve the problem.
16. The landlord explored whether it could make physical changes to the door to improve security. It decided not to proceed, citing prohibitive costs and confirming that the door was not defective. While this may be a reasonable position, this Service has not seen evidence of the cost assessment. The landlord’s records show that 9 of the 15 flats are leasehold, meaning it could have consulted with leaseholders under the Section 20 process. By not doing so, the landlord missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it had considered all available options. It did not demonstrate adequate concern for safety and security, especially given the ongoing issues with the car park gates.
17. The resident has told this Service that as of 3 November 2025, the issues with the car park gate and communal door are unresolved. He states that in periods of cold weather, the gates frequently stop working and residents interfere with the mechanisms to manually force the gates to open so that they can gain access. The communal door remains unaltered and frequently unlocked, leading the resident to feel unsafe and vulnerable to theft and ASB.
18. Taken together, the landlord’s actions did not meet the standards set out in its own policies. The response to repeated reports and complaints lacked coordination and failed to address the root causes of the security issues. This Service finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s management of communal areas relating to building access and security.

Complaint	The management of the complaint.
Finding	Maladministration

 

19. The landlord’s Complaints Policy required responses within 10 working days at Stage 1 and 20 working days at Stage 2.
20. Its Compensation and Remedies Policy allowed payments of up to £600 for time, trouble, and inconvenience, and up to £250 for shortcomings in complaint handling.
21. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this would not typically investigate complaints that have not completed a landlord’s internal complaints process. However, where events directly relate to the matters under investigation, this Service may consider them. In this case, we have investigated the landlord’s overall complaint handling to assess whether it followed its policies and the Ombudsman’s Code.
22. The resident submitted 6 complaints between 8 June and 29 November 2023. The 1st complaint, raised on 8 June, concerned the car park gates. The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 on 19 June but failed to issue a formal response.
23. Following contact from the resident, this Service intervened on 15 September and asked the landlord to respond. On 19 September, the landlord advised it had responded, but its reply only addressed the resident’s 2nd and 3rd complaints about the broken communal door lock and lighting. It did not refer to the original complaint about the gates. This indicates shortcomings in record keeping and a lack of clarity in how the landlord tracked and responded to security-related concerns and complaints.
24. It is not in dispute that the landlord responded to the 2nd and 3rd complaints, which the resident did not escalate to stage 2.
25. The resident submitted a 4th complaint via webform on 18 September about the communal door being left unlocked. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 2 days and issued a Stage 1 response on 4 October. It agreed to revisit the property to assess security measures and wrote to residents reminding them to lock the door. It also offered £50 compensation for not taking earlier action. This offer was good practice and consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy for minor disruption.
26. However, the landlord did not pay the compensation promptly. The resident followed up 3 times before submitting a 5th complaint via webform on 8 November about the lack of communication and non-payment. The landlord did not formally acknowledge or respond to this complaint. This was the 2nd time the resident did not receive a formal response, which suggests the complaints process was not consistently functioning as it should.
27. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s 6th complaint at stage 1 on 29 November about the car park gates. It is unclear from the evidence when or how the resident submitted this complaint, which again points to poor record keeping.
28. On 11 December, the landlord informed the resident it would extend the response deadline to 21 December. It did not provide a response by that date or afterwards. This added to previous delays and could only have contributed to the resident’s evident increasing frustration.
29. The resident contacted this Service again, and we asked the landlord on 19 December to respond to the complaints about both the gates and the communal door by 18 January 2024. The resident later clarified to the landlord by email that his complaint related to the communal door. The landlord raised a stage 2 complaint on 2 January and issued its response on 22 January, stating it did not uphold the complaint. Its stage 2 response did not address the gate complaint, which was understandable given the resident’s recent communication. However, the landlord should have been alert to the 6th complaint about the gate, which was overdue a response at stage 1. The landlord’s failure to respond to a formal complaint for the 3rd time likely contributed to the resident’s continued dissatisfaction and exacerbated a lack of confidence in the landlord’s complaints management and its ability to resolve the issues.
30. Cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling and record keeping.

 

 

Learning

31. Poor documentation led to confusion about which issues had been addressed and contributed to delays in resolving complaints. The landlord should review its complaint logging and tracking systems to ensure all complaints are accurately recorded, referenced, and responded to in line with its policy.
32. The landlord did not respond to 3 formal complaints, and in 1 case, it failed to pay agreed compensation without prompting. The resident had to contact this Service twice to obtain responses, indicating that the complaints process was not easily accessible or consistently followed.
33. The landlord responded reactively to repeated breakdowns of the car park gates and did not take sufficient steps to create an enduring resolution to the underlying issues. It missed opportunities to consult the resident about potential security improvements and did not provide evidence to support its decision not to proceed with door modifications to enhance security.