Peabody Trust (202333934)

Decision
Case ID	202333934
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	3 December 2025

Background

1. The resident bought his complaint to us as an individual member of a group complaint raised with the landlord in March 2023. The complaint was about the landlord’s response to an earlier service charge enquiry in November 2022.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries.
3. We have also considered how the landlord handled the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s service charge queries.
   2. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in how it handled the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. In general, the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about his service charges were fair and reasonable. However, limiting the refund for its acknowledged miscalculation of his bin shed charge to 5 years was neither fair nor reasonable. The refund should have been based on all overpayments the resident had made since the error began and interest should also have been paid to recognise that he did not have the use of those funds.
6. The landlord acknowledged its failings, provided responses to the queries it had failed to respond to at stage 1, identified learning from the outcome and offered compensation. The level of compensation offered being sufficient to provide reasonable redress 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 15 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 for the unnecessary frustration and inconvenience to him as a result of its handling of his overpayments for the bin shed. 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 15 January 2026
3	Service charge order The landlord must refund the resident all the monies he had paid in excess of what the correct charge should have been for the bin shed, back to the date when the miscalculation first occurred. The landlord must pay interest on any amount it refunds to the resident at a rate of 2% simple. This is to recognise the resident did not have the use of those funds. The landlord must produce evidence to the Ombudsman as to how it has worked this out no later than the due date.	No later than 29 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 March 2023	A formal complaint was made to the landlord disputing its responses to 11 of the issues previously raised in a service charge enquiry in November 2022. These concerns related to: Excessive service charges and discrepancies between estimated and actual costs A decline in its service provision including unresolved issues such as broken gates, abandoned bikes, and poor repairs. Costs for bin shed door repairs, mould removal, and door entry handset installations being charged to all residents The landlord sharing contact details with contractors without consent.
21 April 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response, in which it: Apologised for the differences between the estimate and actual costs. The landlord explained that costs were estimated using information of previous actual costs of services to the resident’s building/estate that it had at the time of setting the budget. Sometimes, some of these costs could be difficult to estimate due to a number of reasons, one being the varying nature of responsive works. Said the resident could make a formal Section 22 request for access to invoices to evidence the works charged for. Acknowledged the resident’s concerns and requested specific examples of service decline for review. The landlord said additional services could be considered but would incur extra costs. Noted that previous gate repairs were confirmed, residents were advised to report new faults and the bike store issues were referred to the Neighbourhood Manager. Explained its Neighbourhood manager had reported that the rear door of the bin shed lock was broken, so a contractor installed new self-locking doors and a key safe. Costs were capped and not fully charged to residents. The landlord said the door was not under warranty or insurance. Acknowledged the bin shed and access gate to the car park was shared with another block and so the costs would be shared with that block. The landlord apologised for this ‘miscalculation’ and confirmed that historic charges relating to this would be recalculated and any difference from this recalculation refunded to residents. Explained that the handsets were part of the integrated communal entry system and was not a system that individual tenants could purchase on their own. Said residents contact details were shared only with contractors under written agreements and GDPR-compliant terms, typically when access was required to complete works or fulfil contractual obligations.
4 May to 11 July 2023	The group complainants sought to escalate their complaint. This was because the landlord had not covered all the issues raised in its stage 1 response. The issues that remained outstanding included: The group’s request for it to provide details of comparative quotes for lighting and to explain what proposals it had for reducing the consumption/costs going forward. Why there were ‘such huge discrepancies between the estimates and actuals’ and how did those who were managing the properties get the costs ‘so wrong’. The landlord was asked to explain what actions it would take to provide more accurate estimates in future and what actions it would take to ensure works were necessary before being charged to leaseholders. Why they were charged for mould removal and what steps the landlord would take to ensure leaseholders were only charged for work that was actually carried out.
31 July 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. The landlord acknowledged it had not responded to a number of the concerns that had been raised, for which it offered the group a total of £50 compensation. It also offered the group a total of £100 for the delay in it sending its stage 1 response and in the escalation process. The landlord went on to provide a response to the issues that it had failed to respond to previously. With regard to energy consumption, the landlord said it was under contract with its supplier and its Energy team monitored costs. Electricity costs for 2021/22 were 45% lower than the previous year.. With regards to reducing consumptions, the landlord said where old style light fittings failed they were being replaced with LEDs which reduce running costs. The landlord said it did not have the funds to pay to upgrade all its blocks; however, it looked to prioritise older and failing systems. With regards to the ‘huge discrepancies’ between estimates and actual costs. The landlord noted it had previously apologised for the differences between the budgeted and actual costs and reiterated the position it had given in its stage 1 response. The landlord said as the Service Charge team become more familiar with the workings of individual developments, this generally resulted in more accurate estimates forecasting. However, this was still dependent on providing forecasts on responsive works, which can be difficult to predict. The landlord said it had previously advised the resident that it would remove the charge for the mould removal as no work was done. The landlord said it had been informed that this was a callout charge which was removed as no work was done. As manager of the development, it had to respond to reports when they are raised, however, it agreed that this should have been removed when it was reconciled.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate his complaint. The resident confirmed that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response with regards to: Its management of his block and his service charges. Its handling of the historical overcharges, which it had agreed to do in its stage 1 response. It including £70 in the actuals for mould removal that did not take place. His section 22 requests It apportioning the cost to replace handsets in some flats to all residents.

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 the resident’s service charge queries.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

7. We do not investigate complaints about the level of service charge or the amount of the service charge increase. We will also not investigate whether the service or works themselves provide value for money and were reasonably incurred or whether the terms of the lease are ‘reasonable’.
8. As such we will not investigate whether the expenditure for repairs, management, maintenance, and block services was reasonably incurred. We will also not investigate whether it is fair that the lease allows for the landlord to recoup interest from the leaseholder for outstanding monies owed, but does not make provision for the leaseholder to recoup interest from the landlord where monies are owed to them by the landlord.
9. If the resident wanted to pursue his concerns about these matters, he may wish to challenge the charges by applying to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or the court.
10. We will also not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure order and we are satisfied that the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
11. In this case the resident’s Section 22 request was not part of the complaint and the request was not made until after he was advised he could do so in the landlord’s stage 1 response.

What we have investigated

12. We are satisfied that the landlord’s response the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its management of his block, with specific reference to service charge forecasts being ‘grossly inaccurate’, a decline in service, longstanding issues (including gate repairs and bike store issues) that had not been resolved and sharing resident’s contact details with contractors, was both fair and reasonable. This is because:
    1. It apologised for differences between estimated and actual costs and provided a reasonable explanation of the challenges with regards to setting estimates.
    2. Explained that as the Service Charge team become more familiar with the workings of individual developments, this generally resulted in more accurate estimates forecasting.
    3. Acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the decline in service, requested specific examples for it to review, and managed expectations by advising that extra services could be considered but may incur additional costs.
    4. Confirmed previous gate repairs, advised the resident to report new faults, and confirmed the bike store issues were referred to a Neighbourhood Manager.
    5. Clarified that residents’ contact details were shared only with contractors under GDPR-compliant agreements when access was required to complete works or fulfil obligations.
13. We are not satisfied that the landlord only agreeing to backdate the refund for the bin shed, which was shared with another block, for 5 years was either fair or reasonable.
14. The resident said he had been a leaseholder and paid this charge for a longer period of time. The resident also questioned whether the landlord should have paid interest on the amount it refunded with regards to this charge.
15. It has been noted that this matter was not referred to in the landlord’s stage 2 response.
16. However, in accordance with the Scheme, we can consider complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure where there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and we are satisfied the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
17. In this case, we have seen evidence of the stage 2 complaint handler emailing colleagues about both the refund and interest which confirms that these issues had been raised as part of the escalation request. That this issue was not responded to in the stage 2 response represents a complaint handling failure and as such we are able to consider this element of the resident’s complaint.
18. It is welcome that the landlord recognised that the costs for the bin shed should have been shared with another block, acknowledged its miscalculation and agreed to refund the resident for any overpayment as a result of its error. However, unless the miscalculation had only been an issue for 5 years, it was not reasonable for the landlord to limit the refund to the resident to that period of time. Instead, what is should have done was to have offered to refund him all the monies he had paid in excess of what the correct charge should have been back to the date when the miscalculation first occurred, even if that meant refunding him back to when he purchased the lease.
19. Further, whilst the lease does not state the landlord must pay interest on monies it owes residents, it is our position that, in fairness to the resident, it would have been reasonable for it to have done so in recognition of the resident not having the use of those funds.
20. It is the landlord’s response to this element of the resident’s complaint that has resulted in our finding of maladministration.
21. We are satisfied that the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about it including £70 in the actuals for mould removal that did not take place was reasonable. This is because the landlord acknowledged its error, removed the £70 and agreed that this should have been removed when it was reconciled.
22. We have also found the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the replacement of handsets, for the integrated communal entry system, being charge to all resident’s, was reasonable. This is because:
    1. Clause 7(5) of the lease states that the ‘relevant expenditure to be included in the service provision shall comprise all expenditure reasonably incurred by the landlord in connection with the repair, management, maintenance and provision of services to the block’. Clause 7(5)(a) makes specific reference to Clauses 5(2), 5(3) and 5(4)
       1. Clause 5(2) relates to keeping the block insured
       2. Clause 5(3) relates to roof, main structure of the block and all external parts

(1)  5(3)(a), pipes, sewers, drains etc

(2)  5(3)(b), ‘Common Parts’

(3)  5(3)(c).

3. Clause 5(4) relates to keeping common parts adequately cleaned and lighted. 

2. Clause 1(3) of the lease includes within a definition of ‘‘the Common Parts’’: ‘’any other areas or facilities in the block which are used or intended for use by the leaseholders of the flats within the block together with the tenants of the estate’’.

23. Whilst the lease does not explicitly include intercom or handsets, the above terms are of a usual type for a lease and do not seem unusual or out of place. It could also fairly be said that costs for the maintenance of the entire intercom system, including handsets, would naturally fall within the landlord’s maintenance and provision of services to the block. It could also fairly be said that the entire intercom system, including handsets would also naturally fall within the definition of ‘‘Common Parts’’ as it is a facility used or intended for use by the leaseholders of the flats within the block.
24. If the resident wanted to pursue this matter further, they may wish to seek legal advice about whether they could do so by applying to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or the court.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

25. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 Edition (March 2022).
26. The landlord had a published complaints policy which complied with the terms of the 2022 Code in respect of timescales. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy in line with our 2024 Code (April 2024).
27. The resident was part of a group of 12 residents that raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 24 March 2023. In accordance with its complaints policy the landlord would have been expected to have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and provided its stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. In its final response, the landlord said this was acknowledged on 5 April 2023. However, it has provided no evidence to support this. The landlord then provided its stage 1 response on 21 April 2023, 5 working days later than the expected deadline date.
28. On 4 May 2023, the complaint was escalated under the lead complainants email but under another name, stating they had not received the landlord’s stage 1 response. The landlord resent its response on 9 May 2023, but residents later reported non-receipt and, on 15 June 2023, that they could not open the attachment.
29. The landlord initially refused to escalate the complaint, on 21 June 2023, stating all the complaint points had already been addressed. However, following further correspondence with the lead complainant it acknowledged the escalation request on 11 July 2023, over 2 months after the initial escalation request of 4 May 2023.
30. The landlord issued its final response on 31 July 2023, in which it provided responses to the points that had not been addressed in its stage 1 response. However, by this time 62 working days had passed since the complaint had been escalated on 4 May 2023. This was 42 working days later than the 20-working day timescale for it to provide its stage 2 response.
31. The landlord apologised for the delay in its stage 1 response and for wrongly refusing to escalate the complaint in June 2023, claiming (at that time) that all the points raised in the complaint were addressed . The landlord offered the group (of 12 resident’s, including the resident in this case) a total of £150 compensation for these failures.
32. The landlord also identified areas where it could learn from the complaint, recommending training on:
    1. The handling of group complaints. The landlord acknowledging that had the correct procedure for group complaints been established at Stage 1, its failures with regards to this complaint would not have happened
    2. What constitutes a complaint and how to handle escalation requests.
33. Where the landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
34. In this case, the landlord acknowledged its failings, provided responses to the queries it had failed to respond to at stage 1, identified learning from the outcome and offered compensation. The level of compensation offered was sufficient to provide reasonable redress to the resident.