Peabody Trust (202319517)

Background

1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since March 2016. In June 2023, she raised concerns about a gate repair which the landlord carried out and offered compensation for. However, the resident continued reporting issues with unauthorised use of the parking and recurring gate repairs. She also raised some concerns about the safety of the building as residents from the adjacent building had been using unauthorised key fobs to gain access and the lift.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The maintenance and security of the building and car park.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We determine during its complaints process the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in relation to her complaint about its handling of the maintenance and security of the building and car park.
4. We determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The maintenance and security of the building and car park.

5. The landlord did not keep the resident sufficiently informed about the progress of the repairs or the actions taken to resolve the issues in the car park. It also failed to follow through on its commitment to meet with her to discuss the building safety concerns, which contributed to the resident escalating the matters to us.
6. While the landlord did not respond to her initial report about residents from the adjacent building accessing her building, it later investigated the matter and explained its decisions.
7. The landlord acknowledged all the failures identified and paid £200 compensation to the resident to reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident. The steps it had taken and the offer was reasonable and reflected the impact of the failings identified in this report and to put things right.

The resident’s complaint

8. The landlord missed to respond to the resident’s complaint in August 2023, and it failed to acknowledge this or take any learning. It delayed its stage 2 response and did not fully address all the aspects of the complaint, particularly related to a fair complaint process.
9. In its While it acknowledged failures in complaint handling and offered compensation it was not clear what exactly failures it referred to. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the failures identified in this report.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

10. We will consider the landlord’s handling of the maintenance and security of the building and car park collectively when reaching our determination. However, for clarity and readability, we will assess each issue individually below.

Maintenance and security of the car park

11. On 21 June 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident complaint about a repair to the car park gate. It confirmed that it would replace the gate control board (which it did on 23 June 2023) within a week and offered compensation to reflect the impact of its failings on her. We understand that the resident did not escalate her complaint, so it is reasonable to conclude that she was satisfied with the outcome of her complaint about this repair and the landlord’s proposed resolution. Therefore, while these events provide useful context, our investigation will focus on events that occurred after 21 June 2023.
12. In October 2023, the resident reported that a homeless individual was in the bin store, explaining that the person gained access due to the broken car park gate. The landlord addressed this issue in its complaint responses in November 2023 and March 2024. However, the resident had previously raised this matter with us, and we investigated it in October 2024, under case reference 202214147. As we have already investigated the issue, we will not look at it again.
13. In it stage 1 complaint response in November 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it would inspect the car park gate the following day and discuss the matter with her. However, and from its own admission, it failed to do this. The resident then contacted the landlord on 31 November 2023 and again on 18 December 2023, to chase the outstanding actions. Although it acknowledged her emails, it did not show that it contacted the resident to discuss her concerns. A key aspect of dispute resolution is for landlords to follow through on the commitments they make during the complaint process. The landlord‘s failings to do so in this case was unreasonable. Its failings caused inconvenience, time and effort to the resident who then raised the issue as a stage 2 complaint in February 2024.
14. Between December 2023 and February 2024, the resident continued to report issues with the car park gate. The landlord acted on her reports within the 10 working days timeframe outlined in its responsive repairs policy. For instance, after the resident’s report on 20 December 2023, the landlord specialist contractor repaired the gate the following day. When the resident reported on 29 January 2024, that the gate was stuck open, the landlord promptly raised the repair, and its specialist contractor attended seven days later. It inspected the problem, tested the gate and the residents’ fobs, confirming it was working properly. These actions were reasonable.
15. The landlord’s specialist contractor carried out 6 monthly inspections of the car park gate, including one on 24 November 2023, which found no issues. The landlord also audited the gate in January 2024 and reported no faults. While these inspections only confirmed the gate’s condition at the time, the landlord demonstrated that it took proactive and reasonable steps to maintain the gate and ensure it remained in working order. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord.
16. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy describes that it will keep residents updated on the status of their repairs. In this case, while the gate repair was a communal issue, the resident’s communications made it clear that the situation caused her distress and inconvenience. She repeatedly informed the landlord that non-residents were using the car park, leaving her without a space and sometimes blocking her car. Although the landlord acted on the resident’s repair reports, it did not show that it shared the outcomes of its inspections or updated her on the repairs carried out. This lack of communication was unreasonable and did not align with its policy. Its failings to keep the resident informed contributed to her feeling ignored, which negatively affected her relationship with the landlord and undermined her trust in its ability to resolve the issues.
17. The resident reported abandoned cars in the car park, which she said were left there due to issues with the gate. In its Stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it would investigate the matter and consider removing the vehicles if appropriate. The landlord then made several visits to the site in April 2024, and within 12 days of issuing its response, it identified 1 potentially abandoned car and reported it to its car park managing agent on 29 April 2024. This was reasonable, the landlord showed that it investigated the issue promptly and took steps to begin the removal process.
18. In May 2024 the landlord informed the resident that it decided to proceed with parking enforcement to manage the issues of non-residents using the car park. The resident informed us that this approach had since been implemented, however, non-residents continued to access the car park when the gate was in disrepair.
19. Since April 2024 the resident reported new issues with the gate. However, we are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of these repairs as it has not had the opportunity to do so itself, through its internal complaints procedure. We understand that in December 2024, the resident raised a new complaint with the landlord about the car park security and the gate disrepair. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response issued on 5 June 2025 and raised the matter with us.  We are currently considering her request to investigate her new complaint for the period from April 2024 until 5 June 2025 under case reference 202446100. As such, this period will not form part of this investigation.
20. In September 2025, and more recently the landlord informed us that its specialist contractor had recommended replacing the car park gate. It accepted this recommendation and was in the process of reviewing the quote before proceeding with the replacement. The resident confirmed that she was satisfied with this and was hopeful it would resolve the car park security issues. This demonstrated that the landlord was engaged following its internal process and has taken her concerns seriously.
21. In October 2025, the resident informed us that following issuing its stage 2 complaint response, a disagreement between the landlord and its car park managing agent over responsibility for removing the abandoned car had caused delays. As an impartial service, we base our decisions solely on the evidence provided, and in this case, we did not see evidence that the landlord failed to adequately address the matter. The resident confirmed that she was satisfied the landlord had placed a notice on the vehicle she had previously reported and was taking steps to remove its process. However, if the situation changes, she may consider raising a new complaint with the landlord.

Security of the building

22. On 5 August 2023, the resident reported concerns about neighbouring residents accessing her building and lift, describing it as a breach of privacy, a security issue, and a disruption. She submitted the report using the landlord’s ASB webform. Although the landlord later explained in its stage 1 complaint response that the issue did not constitute ASB, it failed to respond to her report at the time. This was not in line with its ASB Policy, which requires contact with victims of non-personal ASB within 5 working days or notification when closing a case. The landlord’s failings to respond caused inconvenience to the resident, who had to escalate the matter through a formal complaint.
23. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered to meet with the resident to discuss her concerns but failed to follow through, as it later acknowledged. This failure to act on its commitment was unreasonable and, as noted earlier in this report, caused inconvenience to the resident, leading her to escalate the matter to stage 2.
24. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that it had investigated the matter but was unable to identify the individuals using unauthorised fobs or those responsible for distributing them. It also explained that reissuing fobs to all residents would not be proportionate and confirmed it would continue to investigate further. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, it made its position clear to the resident and while agreeing to investigate further, it took steps in managing the resident’s expectations.
25. Following its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord inspected the building, assessed the number of fobs that would need reissuing, and kept the resident informed of its findings and actions. Although there was initial confusion about shared access between the two buildings, with the resident’s assistance, the landlord identified that access had occurred via the automatic opening vent (AOV) door. During its inspection, the AOV door was closed, and it was unable to determine how it had been opened. These were reasonable actions by the landlord, it investigated the issue, maintained communication with the resident, and provided a clear explanation for its decision not to reissue fobs.
26. Although the resident confirmed the issue had not reoccurred, she remained concerned about building security However, we are satisfied that the landlord previously took her concerns seriously, investigated the matter and explained its decisions. As there is no evidence the issue reoccurred, we are not recommending further action.

Summary

27. We have found a number of failures in relation to the landlord’s communication and follow up on its commitments to resolve the issue. We recognise that its failings caused inconvenience, time and effort and distress to the resident. However, in its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged all the failures identified and offered compensation.
28. The landlord broke down the £200 compensation as follows:
    1. £100 to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident for having to repeatedly report her concerns.
    2. £100 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by its lack of communication following the submissions of reports.
29. The landlord’s Compensation Policy describes its approach to providing remedies to complaints which includes payments of compensation. It says that it will consider the inconvenience, time and trouble, and impact on residents when awarding compensation. It elaborates that in such cases, it will pay up to £150 compensation to residents. As such the compensation offered was exceeding its policy prescriptions. It is also in line with our remedy guidance for failures where they have not got a permanent impact on the resident.
30. In conclusion, the landlord had acknowledged all its failures and had taken considerable steps to respond to the resident’s concerns. Its compensation offer was reasonable and reflected the impact of the failings identified in this report. It clearly explained the basis for its offer, which aligned with the levels set out in its Compensation Policy for cases of this nature. It paid the compensation to the resident, resolving the matter before our investigation began. Therefore, we determine that, in all circumstances of the case, the landlord’s action during its complaints process amount to reasonable redress.

31. On 1 August 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about its lack of response to her request for a discussion regarding the building security issues. It acknowledged her complaint on 18 August 2023, which exceeded the 2 working days timeframe set out in its complaint policy. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to acknowledge the complaint within the required timeframe. Its failure to do so was unreasonable. Additionally, the landlord failed to respond to this complaint and as such delayed the complaint process by 4 months.
32. On 18 August 2023 the landlord informed the resident it had allocated her stage 1 complaint for investigation to the person the resident complained about. This was inappropriate, as it compromised the integrity of the complaints process. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that complaint handlers must act independently, assess complaints on their merits, and maintain an open mind. The Code also requires that landlords address any actual or perceived conflict of interest. By allocating the investigation to the subject of the complaint, the landlord failed to uphold these principles and provide fair process. It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to assign the complaint to a different officer who was not involved in the matter. The landlord’s failure to do so was unreasonable and did not align with the standards set out in the Code.
33. On 1 November 2023, the resident submitted a new formal complaint, which the landlord acknowledged on the same day. This was appropriate and in line with its complaint policy. Its policy says that it would respond to complaints within 10 working days. Where it needs additional time, it would inform the resident and agree a revised response date. In this case, the landlord communicated the need for an extension, agreed a new timeframe with the resident, and issued its response within the agreed period. This demonstrates that the landlord handled the stage 1 complaint reasonably and in accordance with its complaint policy timeframe.
34. On 9 February 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The landlord issued its response on 28 March 2024, which was 24 working days beyond its published timeframe. It did not provide evidence that it informed the resident of the delay or agreed a revised response date, which was unreasonable and not in keeping with its complaint policy. This caused inconvenience to the resident, who had to seek support from us to obtain a response to her complaint.
35. The resident informed the landlord that it had not addressed all the issues raised in her complaint, including its failure to respond to her August 2023 complaint. Although the landlord later acknowledged poor communication by the staff member involved at stage 1, it had not clearly specified any failings or the level of compensation it offered in relation to its complaint handling in its stage 1 response. This did not comply with the Code, which requires landlords to address all points raised in complaints and provide clear reasons for their decisions. Its failings caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the matter with us.
36. The landlord’s offer of £50 compensation was explained as being towards the inconvenience caused to the resident by its communication. However, this was not sufficient to adequately reflect the impact of the failings identified in this report. We, therefore, order the landlord to pay £150 compensation to the resident – this is inclusive of the compensation it paid during the complaint process. This reflects the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its poor complaint handling.

Learning

37. The landlord’s communication was not effective both in terms of repairs and complaint handling. The landlord did not follow best practices outlined in our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance, which emphasizes proactive updates to avoid dissatisfaction.
38. The landlord’s record keeping was consistent about the repairs and the communication logs. However, it should look to improve its complaint handling record keeping.