Peabody Trust (202332699)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202332699 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Peabody Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Leaseholder |
|
Date |
25 November 2025 |
Background
- The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a flat. The resident reported repairs to the landlord using its webform. He complained to the landlord when he did not receive a response to the repairs he reported. He considered there could be a fault with the webform.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about:
- The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its webform.
- The landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found that:
- There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its webform.
- There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord acknowledged and apologised for failures in its communication. It investigated the resident’s concerns regarding its webform and provided a reasonable response. It offered a compensation we considered was proportionate to its failings and was sufficient to resolve the complaint.
- The landlord acknowledged and apologised for failures in its complaint handling. It offered compensation we thought was reasonable to reflect the impact of its failings upon the resident.
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £125 as agreed in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for its response about its webform and complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.
|
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
10 October 2023 |
The resident complained to the landlord. He said he had reported repairs through the landlord’s webform but had not received a response. He said he had sent emails to the address provided but had also received no response. The resident raised concerns the webform was broken and the landlord was not monitoring the inbox he had emailed. He said when logging a repair online he received a thank you message but did not receive any email acknowledgment. |
|
24 October 2023 |
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said its webform was working correctly and messages sent to it would receive a thank message when submitting a repair. It said it had passed on the resident’s concerns for the relevant team to investigate. The landlord apologised for failing to respond to emails the resident sent to it. It offered compensation of £75. |
|
24 October 2023 |
The resident escalated his complaint with the landlord. He said the landlord’s response did not explain what happened to his previously reported repairs. He said he had phoned the landlord after submitting each repair, but it had no record, so he had to log it again over the phone. He asked the landlord to review whether the lack of response to him reporting online repairs was due to a technical or process issue. |
|
6 November 2023 |
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation. |
|
28 November 2023 |
The landlord provided its final response. It provided a copy of a repair the resident submitted through its webform in September 2023. It explained as the repair related to lamp posts, it passed the repair onto the contractor responsible. The landlord acknowledged there were improvements it could make to its process regarding communication. It said it had provided feedback to the relevant team. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for a delay in its complaint response. It offered compensation of £125, which included £25 for complaint handling failures. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate his complaint. He said when he submitted repairs through the landlord’s webform they are lost or ignored. The resident said the complaint was not about a particular repair but about the landlord’s failure to investigate and resolve the issue, which he said could be either a technical or process issue. |
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 concerns about its repair webform |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
What we have not investigated.
- The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since this complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.
What we have investigated.
- The evidence shows the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about the functionality of it repair webform in 2023. It contacted the team responsible and confirmed it was working as expected. It obtained details of how the webform worked and it provided this information to the resident. It provided evidence it received the details of the repair submitted by the resident in early September 2023.
- The landlord acknowledged it could improve its process, and it fed back to the relevant team. It confirmed it would share all relevant feedback from its response with its leadership team to ensure it reviewed the processes it had in place for residents to report repairs. The landlord’s actions answered the points raised by the resident and demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
- When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
- In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for failures in its communication. It offered the resident compensation of £100.
- It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the failures in its communication. When assessed against our remedies guidance, the compensation offer was proportionate to the failings identified in the case. This leads to our determination of reasonable redress, in that the landlord has made an offer of compensation which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. Its complaint policy is compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within the timescales provided by its policy. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request within the 5-working day policy timescale. However, it manged to respond within the total25-working days allowed by its policy to provide its stage 2 response.
- The landlord acknowledged it had taken too long to acknowledge the request to escalate the complaint. It offered compensation of £25 for the delay. We consider its compensation offer was proportionate to its failings when considering its overall service standards were not impacted. This leads to our determination of reasonable redress, in that the landlord has made an offer of compensation which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord demonstrated detailed record keeping in respect of the matters we have investigated in the case.
Communication
- The landlord demonstrated effective communication with the resident outside of the specific communication failures identified above.