We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Peabody Trust (202326978)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326978

Peabody Trust

28 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 reports of repairs being needed to a communal door, which has led to antisocial behaviour (ASB) and trespassing. 
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, a 1 bedroom flat, on an assured tenancy, since 2002. She lives there with her 2 children. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 14 April 2023, one of the resident’s neighbour’s reported an issue with the communal front door. The landlord attended on 24 April 2023 to take measurements, to obtain a quote to replace it.
  3. On 10 July 2023, the resident reported that while she was on holiday, someone had changed the lock on the communal back door. The landlord created a job to have the lock changed and new keys to be given to all residents.
  4. The resident chased the landlord over the repair to the communal front door on 4 and 17 August 2023. It recorded her concern as a ‘service recovery case’. This was then escalated and recorded as a complaint on 19 October 2023.
  5. In the meantime, on 20 September 2023, the lock to the communal back door was changed.
  6. The resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint on 31 October 2023, and the landlord’s stage 1 response was sent on 30 November 2023. It told the resident it would follow up on the outstanding repairs and then review the resident’s repair and complaint journey once the works were complete.
  7. On 23 January 2024 the landlord told the resident it hoped the work would be done in February 2024. It apologised for the delay and issues experienced and said although it could not offer compensation for “communal challenges”, it offered her £100 compensation for the poor customer service and communication as well as the time taken to respond to the complaint.
  8. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 5 February 2024 and the landlord confirmed on 7 February 2024 this had been done. It said she could expect a formal response within 20 working days. Having been chased by the resident, the stage 2 response was sent on 15 April 2024. The landlord confirmed the communal front door had been replaced but it upheld the complaint. As well as apologising, it offered the resident £300 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused and a further £150 for delays in its complaints handling, a total of £450.
  9. The resident is unhappy with the level of compensation offered as she feels it does not sufficiently recognise the impact the delays had on her family.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs being needed to a communal door, which has led to ASB and trespassing.

  1. An issue with the communal front door was first reported in April 2023. The landlord attended promptly, took measurements and obtained a quote for the door to be replaced, all within 2 weeks of matter being reported.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that any programmed repair works or specialist works that require time for manufacture or a specialist contractor, as was the case here, should be completed within 60 calendar days. In this case, despite obtaining a quote in April 2023, it was not until July 2023 that the quote was sent for approval, in order for the work to be done.
  3. Internal emails supplied by the landlord show the quote was initially sent to the wrong team to approve, and in the meantime someone had accessed the resident’s building and started a fire, which the fire brigade had to attend. 
  4. While approval of the repair to the communal front door was being sought, the resident reported on 20 July 2023 that someone had changed the lock to the communal back door. The landlord obtained approval for the lock to be changed and new keys to be issued to all residents and completed that work 62 days after it was first reported. Although it failed to adhere to the timescales set out in its responsive repairs policy, it only missed the deadline by 2 days. There was only a minor delay in completing that repair and during that time, we have seen that the landlord updated the resident on 31 August 2023 and 6 September 2023. It ensured she understood when the quote had been approved and when the repair had been scheduled. This meant her expectations were managed throughout, so overall, its handling of the back door lock change was reasonable.
  5. The resident raised a concern in August 2023 about how long it was taking to replace the communal front door. After that, the landlord ensured she was kept updated. It emailed her on 24 August 2023, 31 August 2023, 6 September 2023, 20 September 2023 and 12 October 2023, and apologised for the time it was taking. However, after this time, the resident received fewer updates.
  6. The evidence shows several internal emails were sent by landlord staff, following up on the repair. They refer not only to the resident chasing the repair, but to there being an issue trying to identify who needed to approve the work. Despite having received a quote to replace the communal door in April 2023, internal delays meant the necessary approval for the work was not obtained until January 2024, 7 months later. This was unreasonable. The resident was told on 23 January 2024 that the new door would hopefully be installed in February 2024, and the landlord did apologise for challenges in its communication. However, further delays meant the communal front door was not replaced until 8 April 2024, and an electrical upgrade to the door was completed on 10 April 2024.
  7. Overall, it took the landlord a year to replace the communal front door which significantly exceeds the timescales set out in its responsive repairs policy and is unreasonable. Over this period, the resident chased the landlord for information and complained because the delay meant non-residents were able to access the building and this was causing her concern.
  8. It is important to recognise that when the landlord responded to the complaint, it did apologise to the resident for the delay and poor communication. In addition, it accepted the resident and her children had experienced challenges including having 2 pushchairs stolen and had also had concerns over safety while the door was not working properly, as people were trespassing. It said it was unable to offer any individual resident compensation for communal challenges as per its compensation policy. However, the landlord has since explained to us its compensation policy does not explicitly state that communal repair issues are excluded from compensation. It has said it generally does not offer compensation for specific communal repairs, but if delays are identified, it can consider the personal impact on the individual making the complaint. Compensation may be awarded based on the distress and inconvenience caused by those delays and their direct effects.
  9. The landlord did try and put things right. It offered the resident £100 compensation at stage 1 to recognise there had been poor customer service and communication and a delay responding to the complaint. This was rejected by the resident, and at stage 2 the landlord then offered £300 for time, trouble and inconvenience as she had not been given adequate information and it had not monitored outstanding works.
  10. If pushchairs were stolen, that amounts to theft, so the resident could have reported the matter to the police. It does not mean though, that the landlord is responsible, because it is not known who stole the items.
  11. In terms of ASB and trespassing as a result of the door not being replaced, the resident did report on 1 May 2024 that a neighbour had given their keys to a non–resident and the landlord responded straight away. It asked the resident for any evidence she had of damage to the building and importantly, that the neighbour had definitely given a key to someone. There is no indication the landlord received proof the neighbour had done so, so it was unable to take any further action.
  12. The resident also told the landlord on 23 May 2024 that the same neighbour had been knocking on her door. It spoke with the neighbour about their behaviour and told them to stop doing it. No further reports were made by the resident.
  13. The landlord’s ASB policy says ASB is defined as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person. It explains it will respond to reports of ASB within two working days but minor disagreements between neighbours are not considered a breach of tenancy or lease, or as ASB.
  14. It is accepted the resident has found things difficult and was upset with her neighbour. The landlord responded promptly to both reports she made about the neighbour. We do though appreciate the resident and her children may have felt unsettled while the communal door was not working, and there was a delay in getting it repaired. However, there was a lack of evidence to support the claim that the neighbour was sharing their key. The landlord was therefore unable to take any action without the necessary proof. It did though, respond proportionally to the complaint about them knocking the resident’s door and reminding them of their responsibilities. As no further incidents were reported, it was reasonable the landlord did not treat this as ASB.
  15. Overall, the delay getting the approval for the communal door and poor communication at times means the landlord’s service fell short. Its compensation and remedies policy says that a payment of between £201 and £400 would be reasonable where the impact on the resident has been moderate, as opposed to minor or severe. The resident has commented on the length of time there was an issue with the communal door. It is accepted there was a delay and that the resident had concerns while waiting for the door to be replaced, over who may access the building, and therefore may have felt vulnerable. There is no evidence though, that the resident suffered severe detriment as a result of the delay. It is noted the resident and her children sometimes found it stressful not having a secure communal door, so it is appropriate that the landlord recognised that by offering compensation.
  16. The worry and inconvenience experienced by the resident and her family while waiting for the door to be replaced certainly amounts to moderate disruption, due to how long it went on for. Taking in to account that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings, the £300 it has offered already, is in line with its compensation and remedies policy for cases similar to this. Therefore, the compensation offered provides a reasonable and proportionate remedy to resolve this part of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that where an expression of dissatisfaction is about the agreed wording of a policy, or its documented responsibilities as a landlord, it will not be raised as a complaint. They will be recorded as a service recovery case and used as feedback to consider when the relevant policy, procedure or responsibility is due for review. A service recovery case was opened on 17 August 2023, it seems due to the resident being unhappy that the landlord had not complied with its responsibilities in terms of repairing the communal door.
  2. It is clear the resident was not happy about the time taken to address the issue with the communal door, because from 17 August 2023, the landlord was updating her and apologising for the time things were taking. Therefore, this was not just a matter of the landlord receiving feedback, it was aware the resident was dissatisfied, so it would have been appropriate to have recorded it as a stage 1 complaint sooner. 
  3. Once a complaint was logged, the landlord’s stage 1 response was issued 30 working days later, during which time the resident had chased for an update. There is no evidence of the landlord having agreed an extension with the resident, therefore it failed to adhere to the 10 working day target as set out in its complaints policy.
  4. There was a further delay at stage 2 which indicates the landlord had not learned from its earlier mistake. The resident escalated the complaint on 2 February 2024 and provided her reasons for doing so on 5 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 7 February 2024 and said its response would be sent within 20 working days (by 6 March 2024). As she heard nothing further, the resident chased the landlord on 11 March 2024, and the stage 2 response was sent on 15 April 2024, 46 working days after the landlord sent its acknowledgement.
  5. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  6. There were clearly delays throughout the complaints process and the resident had to go to the trouble of chasing things up with the landlord, which added to her frustration. However, the landlord did acknowledge the delays in both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses and offered an apology as well as compensation.
  7. In this case the landlord failed to follow its complaints policy resulting in moderate inconvenience to the resident. The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy states that in a situation like that, compensation of up to £150 would be appropriate. That is the amount already offered by the landlord and it is in line not only with its own guidance, but also ours. As a result, we would have made the same or similar award in the circumstances, and we therefore find that the landlord has made an offer which was reasonable and proportionate to resolve the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme there has been reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of repairs being needed to a communal door, which has led to ASB and trespassing.
    2. Formal complaint.

Recommendation

  1. Pay the resident the £450 compensation offered (if it has not done so already). This recognised a deficiency in the way it dealt with the resident’s reports of repairs being needed to a communal door, as well as its handling of the resident’s complaint. The reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.