Peabody Trust (202401856)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401856

Peabody Trust

30 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s request for permission to sublet her property.
2. Response to the resident’s request to be allocated a disabled parking space.
3. Consideration of the resident’s vulnerability and disability while dealing with her requests and complaint.
4. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a joint shared owner of the property. The lease is dated 1 November 2022, and the property is a 1-bedroom penthouse flat on the 13th floor within a newly constructed development. The property has no allocated parking space, but disabled bays are included in the development. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, the resident made the landlord aware she was heavily pregnant at the time of her complaint and had a hidden disability. At times both joint shared owners contacted the landlord about this complaint, for ease within this report, they will both be referred to as ‘the resident’.
On 23 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord about being allocated a disabled parking bay as she was a blue badge holder and was led to believe at the point of sale, she would be eligible to be allocated a space. The landlord responded and advised the bays were for the wheelchair accessible flats only. It said once all the wheelchair accessible flats were occupied it would look at allocation of any remaining bays at that point.
On 24 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord about subletting her property. She said the request was urgent as she was heavily pregnant and the lift kept breaking down. The landlord responded on 2 August 2023 and said it was unable to grant permission to sublet the property as it did not comply with its shared owner policy.
The resident formally complained via email to the landlord on 29 August 2023. Her complaint included:
1. She had faced “serious challenges” during her pregnancy due to the “frequent” breakdowns of the lifts. This had caused “immense inconvenience” and created potential health risks.
2. She felt her choice of a homebirth was compromised due to the instability of the lifts. She said additional expense had been spent on private healthcare due to the landlord’s lack of “compassion and timely responses”.
3. She raised concerns about the approach taken to allocate parking spaces when such spaces remained unoccupied.
4. She requested due to the above, the landlord consider her right to sublet the property temporarily.
5. She said the inadequate security of the communal front doors was a serious issue that needed to be urgently addressed.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 October 2023, which included:
1. It advised the scheme was advertised as a car free development, meaning parking was not provided.
2. It advised the communal front doors were broken several times by residents’ mis–using the doors during the defects period. It had written to all residents about this and hoped it was now resolved.
3. It confirmed the resident’s lease prohibited subletting; however, it had discretion under exceptional circumstances. It explained each request was assessed on an individual basis and what it would consider as an exceptional circumstance. It reiterated the resident did not meet its criteria for exceptional circumstance.
4. It said it would work with its lift maintenance service to ensure the lifts were working and respond quickly to reports of the lift being out of service going forward within service delivery times.
5. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised for its delayed complaint response, and offered £75 compensation, which included:
  1. £50 for its complaint handling.
  2. £25 for the lack of communication.
The resident requested her complaint be escalated on 7 December 2023. Her request included:
1. She sought compensation for the damages and expenses she had incurred.
2. She had been heavily pregnant and was denied a blue badge parking space.
3. She was denied her right to have a home birth due to the front door being constantly broken, the lifts constantly breaking, being at risk of miscarriage and being trapped in the stairwell.
4. This created a loss of enjoyment of her home and as a result she was forced to stay in alternative accommodation for almost 3 months, incurring significant additional expense.
5. She was denied her right to sublet the property on a temporary basis.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 January 2024, this included:
1. It apologised for its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages.
2. It confirmed the parking was acknowledged as not straightforward and a potential future issue in the development phase as there were only 10 blue badge underground parking spaces for 17 properties.
3. It had discussed the performance of the lifts with its specialist contractor, following investigation it was found that 1 lift required a new circuit board.
4. It had sent the resident the policy about subletting and reiterated that subletting was not considered a right of a shared owner.
5. It confirmed the reasons the resident gave to sublet were not considered to be a building safety issue so her requested was denied.
6. It acknowledged the stress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, apologised its service had failed to meet her expectations and offered £375 compensation, which included:
  1. £275 for its complaint handling failures.
  2. £100 for stress and inconvenience.
The landlord sent a follow up email to the resident on 30 January 2024, which included an update about the repairs to the lifts and a commitment to look into the parking allocations further.

Events following the landlord’s internal complaints process.

On 9 May 2024, the landlord confirmed the resident could access the underground parking area with her blue badge.
In March 2024, the resident enquired about subletting her property temporarily due to working abroad. On 14 May 2024 the resident chased up her request to sublet her property. The landlord responded on 17 June 2024 and advised an application would need to be completed and gave the relevant details. The landlord records do not indicate that it received any further expression of interest in sub-letting following this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

After approaching the Ombudsman, the resident requested a further complaint be considered about additional issues with the property, these included, design faults resulting in a lack of ventilation, the balcony door being heavy, the property was too hot with no air conditioning, and loud noises from the roof at nighttime which disturbed her baby. The resident has said she has complained to the landlord about these issues. No evidence has been seen to show this was brought as a complaint to the landlord; therefore these issues will not be investigated. A landlord must have the opportunity to resolve a complaint through all stages of its complaint procedure before the Ombudsman can assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s response.
It is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.
The resident has also expressed concerns that the landlord has discriminated against her. The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. The landlord has a duty under the Act not to unlawfully discriminate against a person based on their protected characteristics. The Act prohibits direct discrimination, which occurs where a person treats another person less favourably because of a protected characteristic.
It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the actions, or inaction, of the landlord’s staff amounted to discrimination. Allegations of discrimination are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with and response to the resident was appropriate, fair and reasonable.
In addition, under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. Although the Ombudsman cannot find that a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties under the Act.

Request to sublet

Having considered the information supplied to this investigation, it is important to note that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the landlord should allow the resident to sublet the property. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the request it had received, whether it had followed its policy, and responded reasonably, taking into account all of the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s subletting policy says shared owners will not normally be permitted to sublet their home. In line with the Homes England and Great London Authority (GLA)’s Capital Funding Guide, its shared ownership leases prohibit sub-letting, other than in exceptional circumstances. Its policy details a limited number of exceptional circumstances in which it would allow shared owners to sublet properties. These include building safety and working abroad.
The resident first contacted the landlord on 24 July 2023 about subletting her property. A call note from this day says the resident had requested “urgent approval” to sublet her flat due to being heavily pregnant and the lift frequently breaking down. The landlords note suggests the resident believed it to be exceptional circumstances and requested contact. The landlord responded via email on 2 August 2023 and said it could not grant permission based on the points she had raised.
The resident later said on 8 August 2023, her initial enquiry was for someone to contact her back to discuss exceptional circumstances where subletting would be granted. It is not evident that the landlord responded to the resident about this before she made a formal complaint on 29 August 2023, which was not reasonable. In its stage 1 response the landlord advised it had responded appropriately according to its notes and within its service delivery time.
It is clear the inconvenience of the 26 flights of stairs when the lift broke down was the catalyst for the resident’s request to sublet. It is not disputed that the lifts needed repair frequently, throughout the time period of her complaint, the resident made the landlord aware on multiple occasions that the lifts were out of order. It is not evident that there were significant periods of time when the lifts were out of order, although it is noted this would have caused inconvenience. The landlord committed, in its stage 1 response to work with its lift maintenance team to ensure it responded quickly to reports of any breakdowns. It is evident from the landlord’s internal communications that it was aware of frequent problems its own contractors had in maintaining the lifts due to design. It was therefore appropriate that it arranged for a specialist to carry out a survey of all the lifts in the block to establish if the performance could be improved. It then provided its findings in its stage 2 response.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response on 4 October 2023 that the resident’s lease prohibited her to sublet the property. The landlord went on to explain the reasons behind this and that under “exceptional circumstances” it could consider allowing subletting. It provided detail of what would meet the exceptional criteria (building safety, moving abroad or armed forces) and confirmed after a review of her circumstances that the resident did not meet these.
Emails between the resident and landlord from October 2023 suggest the resident requested to sublet her property on the basis of working abroad. It is evident that the landlord did not respond to the resident on this matter until 7 December 2023, where it advised of a change in responsibilities and asked the resident to submit an application with the new information of working abroad for it to be considered. The resident asked for the application details to complete but the landlord confirmed a request in writing would suffice. It is not clear if the resident formally requested to sublet her property on this basis following this. However, the landlord had been made aware of her wish to sublet and reason for doing so via email so it should have considered this or forwarded on to the relevant department on behalf of the resident, rather than requesting a further email before it considered her request.
The resident asked to sublet due to working abroad, again on 22 March 2024 and 4 April 2024, on 2 May 2024, she said she was due to work abroad in June. A further email was sent on 14 May 2024. Although the landlord acknowledged the residents request on 1 occasion it responded on 17 June 2024 and requested the resident made an application. It is not evident she did so. It is clear that the landlord was not fully confident in its policy or process for dealing with subletting requests. Despite the resident clearly requesting to sublet for working abroad purposes in writing it continually requested her to email it an ‘application’. It could have been more proactive in its response to this for example providing clarity as to what information it required and the process of consideration.
It is acknowledged that the resident made numerous requests to sublet due to the inconvenience caused by the lifts breaking down and her having a newborn during her complaint. The landlord appropriately responded to this within its complaint responses and demonstrated within its internal communications that it investigated the resident’s reasons before providing its position on the matter which was a reasonable response. Taking the above into consideration, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s actions equate to maladministration.

Request to be allocated a disabled parking space

According to the information provided for this investigation, the potential issue with the number of disabled parking bays in comparison to the number of flats was raised whilst the property was in the development stage. It is not clear if the landlord had a clear process in how to allocate these bays following this acknowledgement which is what would be expected.
The resident first enquired about parking on 23 February 2023; in this communication the landlord was made aware she was a blue badge holder. The landlord advised promptly on the same day that once all accessible flats were occupied it would then look to allocate any remaining disabled bays to blue badge holders. This was not an unreasonable stance by the landlord.
However, the resident suggested an interim measure for her to temporarily use a bay as she held a blue badge. The resident informed the landlord she would give up the bay if it was then needed by a wheelchair user. The landlord could have been flexible in its response to the resident’s request, rather it encouraged her to make a complaint about the department that decided on the allocation policy for the development. This demonstrated a lack of cohesion internally within the landlord and resulted in avoidable time and trouble for the resident pursuing this matter further.
The landlord’s response to this issue at stage 1 was not adequate. It simply stated that the development was advertised as having no parking, in addition, its stage 2 response advised similar but gave no indication that it had considered the residents request within its complaints process which was not reasonable.
After its complaints process the landlord said it would look into the parking allocation for the resident, its responses were not timely and resulted in the resident contacting the chief executive’s office to try and resolve her concerns. It took the landlord a further 3 months to advise the resident she could access the disabled bays. In total, it took over a year to provide a definitive answer to her concerns about the allocated disabled parking, this amount of time was not reasonable. The landlord’s internal communication about this issue demonstrated a lack of cross departmental working and lack of awareness of any process to deal with such requests. This meant the resident spent avoidable time and trouble chasing the landlord for an answer and trying to understand its reasoning for refusing her a parking space which was not in use by anyone. Taking the above into account amounts to maladministration by the landlord.

Consideration of the resident’s vulnerability and disability while dealing with her requests and complaint

The resident first raised concerns of disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 in communication with the landlord on 7 March 2023. She said she believed the landlords decision to not allow her to access the disabled parking bays, despite them being unoccupied was discriminatory against her as she was pregnant and had a hidden disability. The resident reiterated her concerns about this matter in her email dated 24 October 2023.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord conducted any sort of investigation into the resident’s concerns of disability discrimination. It is therefore not evident that the landlord discussed the matter with the resident and responded to her concerns appropriately.
The landlord has a duty under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) not to unlawfully discriminate against a person based on their protected characteristics. As such, following allegations of discrimination, this Service would expect the landlord to conduct a full and thorough investigation before providing the resident with a full response as part of its complaints process. This would include discussing the matter directly with the person/s concerned. As the landlord cannot evidence that it did this, it would be reasonable to conclude that it did not properly consider its obligations under the Act. This was inappropriate and unfair to the resident.
In summary, the landlord did not demonstrate that it properly considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. It did not conduct a full investigation into the resident’s reports of disability discrimination. As a result of this failure, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure by the landlord in this case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints were to be logged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days, unless an extension was agreed with the resident. Stage 2 responses would be issued within 20 working days of the request being received. Any extension should not exceed 10 working days.
It took the landlord 26 working days to provide its stage 1 response. This exceeded the 10-working day timeframe outline in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and its own policy. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this unreasonable delay within its stage 1 response and appropriately offered £50 compensation.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was also delayed. It explained in its stage 2 response that it should have been due on 11 January 2024 and although it had emailed to extend the response, it still issued the response later than it had said it would. The landlord acknowledged its delay at each stage, apologised and offered a further £225 for its complaint handling failures.
The lack of cross departmental working in this case resulted in a failure by the landlord. Although the resident’s complaint was being overseen by a department responsible for shared owners, this service would expect full answers and advice to be given through a complaints process, showing that a landlord fully reviews the issues raised and offers a full response to the resident. The landlord did not demonstrate it was adequately focussed on the resolution of the complaint as it said it could not answer the issues fully within its complaints process which fell under its neighbourhood team’s remit.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord adequately recognised and apologised for its delays, but failed to provide a full response to the resident which resulted in her concerns remaining unresolved. This amounts to service failure.
The Ombudsman has not made any recommendations in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord was previously subject to a special investigation by the Ombudsman, and we published our findings in July 2023. The landlord has undertaken various measures to improve its performance subsequently. It has done this in cooperation with the Ombudsman. It is noted the landlord also updated its complaints policy and compensation and remedies policy in June 2024 in line with the revised Complaint Handling Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for permission to sublet her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be allocated a disabled parking space.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerability and disability while dealing with her requests and complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident in total £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its identified failings in this report. This is to include:
  1. £100 for its response to the resident’s request for parking.
  2. £300 for its complaint handling failures.
  3. £100 for its failure to demonstrate that it properly considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
This compensation replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £400. The landlord must pay this compensation directly to the resident and not apply it to her rent account or similar, unless the resident requests this. If the landlord has paid its previously offered compensation of £400, or any part of it, it may deduct this from the amount ordered above.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord review its cross departmental working arrangements to ensure a cohesive way of working which can provide a seamless level of service for its residents.
It is recommended the landlord confirm to the Ombudsman the process it has in place for allocating disabled parking bays in developments such as the one in this case.