Peabody Trust (202325938)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202325938 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Peabody Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Leaseholder |
|
Date |
18 December 2025 |
Background
- The landlord is not the freeholder of the property. The freeholder uses an External Managing Agent (EMA) to provide services under the terms of the headlease. On 30 March 2023, the resident asked the landlord about the service charges for the financial year 2021-2022 and said this had increased 112% from the previous year.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s:
- Response to the resident’s request for a breakdown of service charges and an explanation for the increases in the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 periods.
- Complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found that:
- There was a service failure in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s request for a breakdown of service charges and an explanation for the increases applied in the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 periods.
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord did not give a full reply to the resident’s request for an explanation for increases in 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 periods or provide the requested service charge breakdown.
- The landlord missed policy deadlines for complaint responses. It also applied rules unfairly, which delayed its responses.
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:
|
No later than 20 January 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up as follows:
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 20 January 2026 |
|
3 |
Action order The landlord must write to the resident to:
|
No later than 20 January 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should review its complaint policy to ensure that there is clarity around what service charge areas can be considered as part of the complaints procedure. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
9 October 2023 |
The resident complained she had requested explanations about service charge increases and breakdowns since March 2023. The landlord had failed to provide the information she had requested, and she raised a formal complaint. She said she wanted:
|
|
8 December 2023 |
The landlord gave its stage 1 response and said:
|
|
14 December 2023 |
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 as she was dissatisfied with the response from the landlord. |
|
15 February 2024 |
The landlord gave its stage 2 response and explained how and why estimates are made. It also explained the process of reconciliation and said:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate because the landlord did not provide service charge breakdowns for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 financial years. She also said the landlord failed to explain why charges rose in those years as requested. |
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 |
Response to the resident’s request for a breakdown of service charges and an explanation for the increases in the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 periods. |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- Evidence shows the resident first questioned the service charges on 30 March 2023. At this time, the resident did not ask for a full breakdown but explained her concerns about the 2021-2022 actuals being significantly higher than the actual spend for the 2020-2021 financial year. We are unable to see that the landlord responded to the resident or signposted her to the correct team, if her communication was misdirected. It was not until 2 August 2023, following several follow up emails, that the landlord confirmed that it would investigate the resident’s concerns. This was over four months later and was therefore unreasonable.
- In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised and said the service charge increases were due to underestimating EMA’s service charge totals when preparing the estimates. It claimed to have attached EMA budgets, but we could not confirm what was sent. The response did not fully address why charges rose 112% and then another 18% the following year.
- On 14 December, the resident escalated her complaint, as she said the stage 1 did not explain why the charge had increased and she asked for details of the actual costs incurred. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed the details of the resident’s escalation complaint. It said the 2021-2022 service charge rose 18% due to higher building insurance and increased utility costs linked to the cost-of-living crisis. However, it did not address the rise from 2020-2021 to 2021-2022 or respond to the request for additional breakdowns. This omission was unreasonable and a missed opportunity to explain the reasons for the service charge increase and provide the breakdowns for the requested period.
- The landlord gave a general explanation for the increases, shared EMA budgets, and offered £250 compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience. However, it did not answer the resident’s specific questions or address her ongoing concerns about service charge breakdowns. This forced her to make repeated requests and left her dissatisfied with the information provided. The landlord could have improved its response by providing the information she asked for.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- Evidence shows the resident made a formal complaint on 9 October 2023. The landlord said the initial complaint was raised on 2 November 2023, but we have seen no evidence of this complaint. The landlord explained the matter was not classified as a formal complaint under its policy, which states it will not deal with “The amount of service charge or rent increase set in line with a Peabody policy” through the complaints procedure. The landlord later recorded the issue as a complaint on 28 November 2023. While its policy excludes disputes about service charge amounts, this complaint concerned the lack of explanation and breakdowns, which should have been handled under the policy. This failure caused delays and forced the resident to chase responses.
- The complaint policy requires complaints to be logged within 5 working days and a stage 1 response within 10 unless an extension is agreed with the resident. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond until 37 working days after the complaint was raised. This was a clear failure.
- The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 8 December 2023. After it acknowledged the complaint, the landlord contacted the resident twice to apologise for delays, give updates, and explain it was waiting for information from the EMA. Though the landlord took actions to improve communication, the landlord should have replied within the set timescale or agreed an extension under its complaint policy. This was another failure.
- The resident escalated the case on 14 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 21 December and said it aimed to respond within 30 working days. This did not comply with its complaint policy, which requires a stage 2 response within 20 working days and a valid reason for any extension. No reason was given, so the timescale breached the policy.
- The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 15 February 2024, 38 working days after acknowledging the escalation. While the EMA’s response time may have affected the level of response the landlord was able to provide, the landlord failed to provide consistent updates, request extensions with the resident or respond within policy timescales. This was another failure to meet the complaint policy timescale.
- The landlord acknowledged complaint handling failures and delays in administering the complaint and awarded £100 in recognition. This was not considered sufficient as the landlord also misapplied its complaint policy on service charge disputes and did not address this in the stage 2 response. It failed to explain its position on service charge complaints to the resident, causing delays and requiring the resident to spend extra time seeking updates, often without reply.
Learning
- The landlord may wish to revisit its approach and ensure that disputes about how queries are dealt with are appropriately recognised.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The resident provided records of when the complaint was first raised that did not match what the landlord provided. The landlord is expected to maintain accurate records of all resident interactions and, in future, ensure that all available information is provided to the Ombudsman at the initial request.
Communication
- There were several instances where the landlord failed to respond to the resident. The landlord should ensure its communication with residents are regular and consistent while issues are ongoing.