Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Peabody Trust (202429059)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429059

Peabody Trust

27 June 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:
    1. The resident’s stay in temporary accommodation.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which started on 23 November 2009. The property is a 1-bed flat.
  2. On 3 July 2024, an inspection at the resident’s home identified potential structural issues. The inspector recommended that the landlord move the resident into temporary accommodation while further investigations took place. The resident moved into temporary accommodation on 16 August 2024.
  3. Due to further investigations, the landlord extended the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation several times.
  4. On 6 December 2024, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. The resident’s complaint was about about the length of time she had been out of her property and the landlord’s management of the process.
  5. On 28 January 2025, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord explained that investigations into the structural issue at the property had contributed to the delays. It acknowledged that the resident had not retrieved her belongings from storage but said it had taken steps to assist her with collecting them. The landlord also said it had kept the resident informed throughout. It offered compensation of £250 for the delay in providing the stage 1 response and the impact of the delays on the resident.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 28 January 2025. She reiterated her concerns about a lack of information, the overall management of the process and that she still did not have her belongings that the landlord had stored.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 7 February 2025. It acknowledged that the resident had not been well informed of some extensions to her temporary accommodation stay. The landlord said it had made reasonable attempts to assist her in obtaining her belongings on three occasions. It said that it was unable to provide a timeframe for the works but that it would provide the resident with regular updates. The landlord offered increased compensation of £850.
  8. The resident informed this Service that she remained in the temporary accommodation as of 17 June 2025. She said that she was yet to receive her belongings and the landlord had moved her to a new property that was not suitable in terms of size and location.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident currently remains in temporary accommodation and said that she continues to experience further problems related to her stay. She is in different temporary accommodation to that which she lived in at the time of her complaint and has expressed concerns about its suitability. This investigation cannot consider more recent events as these have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint handling process. This is in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says that we may not consider complaints that have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
  2. Our investigation will therefore focus on the events up to the end of the complaint process on 7 February 2025. This report will also consider any proposed actions by the landlord which formed part of the resolution it offered to the resident within the stage 2 complaint response.

The resident’s stay in temporary accommodation

  1. There are several elements to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s management of her stay in temporary accommodation. For clarity, this report will address them individually below.

Communication

  1. Landlord records show that between August 2024 and February 2025, it identified the cause of a structural problem at the resident’s property. Difficulties with access, surveys and arranging works contributed to a delay in it diagnosing the fault. Given the complex nature of the structural issue, it was understandable that this took time to identify and for it to put together a plan of works.
  2. The decision to move the resident into temporary accommodation was reasonable given the extensive nature of the works required. As per its temporary accommodation policy, the landlord should “minimise the disruption and inconvenience of moving people from their home”. The policy also says it will “keep residents informed on the progress of the works to their home”.
  3. Throughout the complaint, the landlord advised the resident that a Neighbourhood Manager (NM) was managing the process surrounding her stay in temporary accommodation. Within its complaint response, the landlord accepted that on more than one occasion, it did not provide the resident with sufficient notice that it was extending her stay in the temporary accommodation. This was a service failing on the part of the landlord.
  4. The landlord initially told the resident that she would be in the temporary accommodation between 16 August 2024 and 16 September 2024. On 16 September 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and asked whether the landlord had extended her stay as she had packed her things and was expecting to move.
  5. By 6 September 2024, the NM had asked to extend the stay for a further 2 weeks. Within that request, made late on a Friday, the NM advised they would then be on leave until 23 September 2024. This meant that the NM would not be available to receive confirmation of the extension and then inform the resident. Although it is understandable that staff will have leave, the landlord should arrange appropriate cover in their absence to limit the impact on residents. This was a service failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to ensure that it kept the resident updated.
  6. Landlord records also show further issues with management of the temporary accommodation during the holiday period in December 2024. On 20 November 2024, the landlord advised the resident that it had extended her stay until 3 January 2025. On 28 December 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and said it had not informed her of any further extension.
  7. The NM only requested an extension on 31 December 2024, following the resident’s contact. As 1 January 2025, would be a Bank Holiday, this meant it was unlikely the landlord could make the resident aware of any extension until the day before the previous booking ran out. This was a further service failing on the part of the landlord. This shows both a lack of planning and understanding of the resident’s situation, causing further unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
  8. On 8 January 2025, landlord notes show that the resident contacted it as her current stay ran out on 10 January 2025. Although the NM had arranged a further extension until 24 January 2025, they had not informed the resident. This was a further service failing on the part of the landlord, demonstrating a lack of learning from the previous instance of poor communications only days before.
  9. It is understandable that given the lack of any notable progress on the repairs, such as fixed dates for works starting, the landlord was unable to provide detailed works updates. However, the lack of certainty around the resident’s temporary accommodation arrangements was at times unreasonable and meant she was on very short notice of potential moves. It is important that landlords provide an empathetic and consistent approach to updating residents throughout this kind of process.
  10. The landlord did not provide a consistent approach to communicating with the resident throughout this process. The assigned NM noted on 28 October 2024 that she would “often get one of my colleagues to speak to her” due to the resident being “quite abusive”. This breakdown in the relationship between the landlord and resident so early in the process is a concern.
  11. In the event of such an issue, it would be reasonable for the landlord to agree a plan with the resident. The landlord could use this to ensure that it managed and communicated any extensions effectively to the resident. It would have been reasonable to include the status of the repairs, ensuring the resident was always up to date and minimising the uncertainty which likely contributed to her distress and inconvenience during this period.

Access to her belongings

  1. It was understandable that the resident did not take all her belongings to the temporary accommodation at first. However, once the landlord identified that the repairs may take some time, it would be reasonable for it to be proactive in ensuring that it provided the resident with her things. Although the resident would not need larger items such as furniture, she would require clothes and other personal items.
  2. Landlord records show that it offered to arrange transport to take the resident to the storage facility and collect her belongings. The resident did attend on 15 November 2024 but found that she could not access her things due to larger items preventing access to other possessions.
  3. The landlord then arranged further transport and assistance to help move the larger items when the resident arrived on 2 other occasions. However, on both occasions, the resident did not use these to obtain her belongings. She emailed to cancel the first agreed visit an hour before the taxi arrived. On the second occasion, she cancelled due to work commitments.
  4. Throughout the complaint period, the resident regularly mentioned her frustration at not having her belongings. It is understandable that this would cause significant distress and inconvenience. However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord did make sufficient offers and took reasonable steps to assist the resident in obtaining those belongings.

Financial concerns

  1. Within the landlord’s temporary accommodation policy, it says that it will “provide residents with appropriate support”. In regards to council tax charges, it says that, after 4 weeks, “we will assist them to apply for an exemption”.
  2. The resident expressed concerns in her emails to the landlord about charges for services at her property and in obtaining her post. This Service has not had sight of any information provided to the resident about assistance it could offer.
  3. The resident did refer to other charges she incurred due to the move. Although it is unclear exactly what the specific charges were, the landlord could have investigated this further and provided the resident with clarification about what costs it would be responsible for and how the resident could make a relevant claim.
  4. Although most charges would be the resident’s responsibility, the uncertainty of when she could return home would have caused uncertainty. After the initial 4 weeks, the landlord should have contacted the resident and offered further support in relation to services such as council tax and advice on other concerns she had about the impact of being away from her property. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as it did not offer the support referenced in its policy, leading to unnecessary distress and inconvenience for the resident.

Summary

  1. Throughout the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation, the landlord failed to provide adequate oversight of the process. It should have arranged any extensions to the temporary accommodation and communicated them to the resident in a consistent manner with plenty of notice. The landlord did not start the relevant works until March 2025, some 7 months after the resident moved out. On this basis, there should not have been instances where the resident did not know whether she was returning home or staying at the temporary accommodation so close to the previously confirmed extension date.
  2. The relationship between the resident and the NM was apparently difficult early in the process. The landlord should have taken steps to ensure that it did not add to the resident’s overall distress and inconvenience by providing a more consistent means by which to keep her supported and informed.
  3. Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered a compensation payment of £800 due to the distress and inconvenience caused. It specifically recognised inadequate communications, uncertainty and distress pending the diagnosis and completion of repairs, and disruption.
  4. This offer was in line with Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for a case where there have been landlord failings that had a significant impact on the resident. This was the case here given the errors made by the landlord on several occasions over a period of more than 6 months which inevitably caused upset to the resident. The level of compensation was therefore sufficient given the circumstances of the case alongside the apology and the landlord’s commitment to learn lessons. On this basis, the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress for this element of the complaint.

The resident’s complaint

  1. Although the resident raised a formal complaint on 6 December 2024, the landlord should have identified earlier correspondence as complaints. The definition of a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, and the resident had expressed her concerns and dissatisfaction in emails prior to the formal complaint. This was a service failure on the part of the landlord as it should have registered the complaint earlier than it did.
  2. After receiving the formal complaint, the landlord should have provided a response within 10 working days as per its complaint policy. However, it took 35 working days. This was another service failing by the landlord as it did not meet its own timeframe.
  3. Within the stage 2 complaint, the landlord said it would provide more regular updates. Although the landlord did not offer a fixed schedule for updates, its records show that, after the complaint, it gave more notice of extensions to her stay and also provided a start date for the works at her property.
  4. In summary, the landlord should have raised this complaint sooner given the resident’s dissatisfaction with the overall process and there was further delay at stage 1. Although the outcome may not have been different without this delay, it likely caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble. The landlord did acknowledge the delay and offered £50 compensation. Given the failings over a short duration, this level of compensation was reasonable. In view of this, the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation amounts of £800 (for the failings linked to the temporary accommodation process) and £50 (complaint handling) it offered through the complaints process. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress decisions are made on the basis that these amounts are paid.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should contact the resident and set out its position on:
    1. the suitability of the current accommodation for her;
    2. how it will provide her with access to her belongings;
    3. the status of repairs at her property;
    4. any support it can offer in terms of charges at/for her property.