Peabody Trust (202333338)

Back to Top

Decision

Case ID

202333338

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Peabody Trust

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

02 December 2025

Background

  1. The resident lives in a fourth floor 2-bedroon flat. She has a number of medical conditions and was diagnosed with cancer after her formal complaint to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to her concerns about parking, including her request for a medical transfer.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We find service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking, including her request for a medical transfer.
  2. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the associated complaint.
  3. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking, including her request for a medical transfer

  1. The landlord lacked clarity when explaining its position on the parking arrangements. It also did not provide the resident with a response to her reasonable adjustment request. The landlord acted in line with its policy when processing the resident’s medical transfer application however it missed the opportunity to provide support to the resident at an earlier opportunity.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. There were clear delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. However its apology and offer of compensation was fair and recognised the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

 

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 January 2026

2

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about parking, including her request for a medical transfer. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date.

 

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

09 January 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

The landlord should re-offer the resident the total compensation of £400 for its complaint handling if this has not yet already been paid. Our finding of reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid. The payment must be paid directly to the resident and not to her rent account.

The landlord should review the resident’s case and consider any reasonable adjustments it may be able to offer. It should then provide the resident with a written response.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

20 January 2024

The resident complained to the landlord that she could not park outside her property. She said the available parking was inadequate and affected her health. She told the landlord she experiences lower back pain, depression, and anxiety. She said the landlord promised her a medical move but had done so.

4 March 2024

The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It:

  • Said a request for a move under medical grounds is assessed independently by a medical provider. The landlord cannot issue medical priority banding. It apologised a commitment had been made outside of its policy.
  • Apologised it had not provided a stage 1 response sooner.
  • Said staff have been reminded about record keeping.
  • Offered £50 compensation for its delayed complaint response.

7 March 2024

The resident escalated her complaint. She:

  • Said the landlord did not address the issues regarding parking.
  • Was unhappy with a call she received from the landlord regarding a medical move. She said the call was dismissive and lacked empathy.

26 July 2024

The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It:

  • Said it was unable to find evidence it promised a medical move. The resident’s medical move applications between 2022 and 2024 were declined due to the assessment of the application and the supporting medical evidence. The resident had not appealed the decision.
  • Said a medical move can only be considered if there is a diagnosed medical condition. It asked the resident to discuss her symptoms with her GP. The resident would need to submit a new medical move application.
  • The correct rehousing procedure was followed. It had found no evidence of discrimination.
  • Said the resident’s tenancy agreement does not have an assigned parking space, driveway or carpark. Parking is on a first come first served basis. It cannot assign a space for everyone as there are a limited number of spaces.
  • It apologised its complaint response was delayed at both stages.

It offered £400 compensation for time and trouble caused by the delays to its complaint handling.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. In summary, she wanted a priority transfer to a property with accessible parking.

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.

Complaint

The landlord’s response to concerns of lack of parking, including the resident’s request for a medical transfer.

Finding

Service failure
  1. In contact with us and the landlord, the resident said the parking issues have affected her physical and mental health. While we understand the resident’s concerns about the impact on her, it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further.
  2. The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. The Act requires any person or organisation which carries out public functions to have ‘due regard’ (properly consider) how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in doing so.
  3. We have no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act, this can only be done by the courts. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures.

 Parking

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not include an allocated parking space, driveway, or car port. The landlord told the resident that parking spaces are limited and they are available on a first-come, first-served basis.
  2. In July 2022 the resident copied the landlord into an email where she said she was registered disabled and had a blue badge. On 20 September 2022 the resident told the landlord she had a back disability and it should be making reasonable adjustments. She said she needed to park outside her home. Under the Equality Act 2010, a landlord has a duty to consider reasonable adjustments for residents with a protected characteristic. This includes people with a disability.
  3. The evidence shows during this period the landlord was in contact with the resident providing advice regarding a medical transfer (assessed later in this report). However the landlord did not provide a response specifically acknowledging the resident’s concerns relating to a reasonable adjustment. It failed to show the resident if it had considered if there were any adjustments it could reasonably make.
  4. The landlord has told us there are no parking spaces at the resident’s property therefore there are no bays to allocate. Its stage 2 response did not make it clear that it did not have any spaces it could consider allocating. The landlord should have been clearer with the resident to manage her expectations.
  5. It was reasonable for the landlord to other consider ways it could assist the resident as she told it she was experiencing lower back pain, anxiety and depression. The landlord showed it considered her circumstances by providing the resident with rehousing options, including a medical move application. As the landlord was unable to provide the resident with parking outside the property, informing her of this option was appropriate as it could lead to the resident moving to alternative accommodation that was more suited to her needs.
  6. The resident’s health circumstances have changed since her formal complaint to the landlord as she has been diagnosed with cancer. We have made a recommendation to the landlord to review the resident’s case and consider if there are any reasonable adjustments it can make. It should provide the resident with a written response.

Medical transfer

  1. The landlord’s rehousing policy states medical transfer applications are independently assessed.
  2. The landlord’s medical assessment form states it cannot process medical assessments without medical evidence.
  3. On 20 June 2022 the landlord emailed the resident stating she had been advised to apply for a medical transfer and “we also approved a move to somewhere with parking.” The resident understood this to mean the landlord had confirmed a medical move. We recognise this would have caused confusion as the landlord was not clear what move it was referring to. However, two weeks later, the landlord provided an explanation of the medical transfer process to the resident’s MP.
  4. The landlord followed its policy by submitting the resident’s medical move applications to an independent assessor. At the time of the resident’s complaint, multiple applications had been assessed and declined.
  5. The landlord gave the resident information on how to appeal and explained the need for medical evidence. We understand this was difficult for the resident to obtain because her lower back pain was not diagnosed. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to request this evidence to consider the impact of her housing on her health.
  6. The landlord offered the resident a referral to its tenant and family support team on 31 January 2024. This shows it considered the impact the situation was having on the resident. However, it missed the opportunity to offer support earlier. On 24 October 2022, the resident told the landlord the issue was the issue was significantly impacting on her mental health and wellbeing.” She told the landlord again in December 2023 that her mental health was suffering.
  7. In September 2024 the resident was granted a medical priority banding. The resident has told us that she wants a priority transfer. We understand the resident’s housing situation has caused her distress and she wants to move as soon as possible.
  8. How long a person has to wait for a housing association property depends on a number of factors including property vacancies, the supply of social housing in the area and the number of applicants waiting for similar housing. We have seen evidence the landlord committed to look for a property meeting the resident’s needs and gave the resident advice to bid on properties.
  9. Overall, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about parking and her request for a medical transfer. The landlord could have explained its position on limited parking more clearly. It should have responded to the resident’s concerns that the landlord had not put in place a reasonable adjustment. The landlord followed its policy when processing the medical transfer application and provided advice on alternative rehousing options to increase the resident’s opportunities. However, overall it missed opportunities to offer support to the resident at an earlier stage.

  1. Complaint

The handling of the complaint

  1. Finding

Reasonable redress
  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint process. It aims to log stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints should be answered within 20 working days. If more time is needed, the landlord should explain the reason and provide a clear timeframe.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint after 7 working days and issued its response after 30 working days. Both were outside its policy timescales.
  3. The landlord did not address the resident’s concern about limited parking in its stage 1 response. It did not use its complaint process to respond to all issues raised.
  4. On 22 April 2024 the landlord told the resident that structural changes were affecting the complaints team and said it would provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. It did not meet this timescale. On 24 June 2024 the landlord advised the resident that her case would be reallocated to a different reviewer. It extended the response time but did not give a new deadline. This created uncertainty for the resident about when her complaint would be resolved.
  5. We contacted the landlord twice about the outstanding stage 2 response. The resident was inconvenienced by needing to seek our assistance.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response after 98 working days, which was a significant delay.
  7. The landlord apologised for its delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It offered the resident £400 compensation. In our view, the landlord’s offer of redress was fair in the circumstances, recognising the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. We did not identify any concerns with the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication

  1. As discussed, the landlord could have explained its position regarding parking in its stage 2 response in more detail.