Peabody Trust (202330792)

Decision
Case ID	202330792
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	28 November 2025

Background

The resident is a shared-ownership leaseholder of a 1 bed ground floor flat. The resident had a previous complaint with the landlord regarding disputed service charges. The resident made a new complaint to the landlord after it notified her bank that there were service charge arrears on her account.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her bank being notified about service charge arrears.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to notify the resident’s bank of the service charge arrears.
2. 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’s decision to notify the resident’s bank of a service charge arrears was in line with its policy and was permitted under the terms of the lease.
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.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If it has not done so already, the landlord should now pay the resident the £65 it offered in its final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for its complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 July 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said it had made an untrue statement to her bank. She said it had told her bank about service charge arrears, but it did not tell the bank she disputed the charges, and the dispute was subject to investigation by our service. The resident requested the landlord contact her bank to provide the correct information, apologise and pay her compensation.
14 August 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged it had notified the resident’s bank of service charge arrears on 27 June 2023. It said this was due to a breach of her lease because of non-payment of service charges. The landlord explained the relevant terms of the lease and said it had tried to contact the resident before it took the step to contact her bank. It said where there is a breach of the lease terms, it would contact the mortgage lender to remedy the breach to avoid the need for legal proceedings. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for a delay in its complaint response. It offered compensation of £25.
15 August 2023	The resident requested her complaint be escalated as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said it had failed to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had incorrectly told her bank it had sent her a ‘Section 166 notice’. She disputed such a notice had been sent. The landlord replied and clarified a Section 166 notice was used to recover unpaid ground rent. It said it did not charge the resident ground rent and asked for evidence of what her bank had told her so it could investigate the matter further.
During September 2023.	The landlord notified the resident there would be a delay in its complaint responses on 13 and 29 September 2023.
1 October 2023	The landlord provided its final complaint response. It reiterated its request for evidence from the resident’s bank. The landlord explained there were no failures on its part when notifying the bank about the service charge arrears. It acknowledged there was a delay to respond to the resident’s complaint. It offered increased compensation of £65 for its complaint handling failures.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said her complaint was the landlord withheld information from her bank when it notified it of her service charge arrears. She said it did not disclose the service charges were in dispute.

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 her bank being notified about service charge arrears
Finding	No maladministration

It is not disputed that the landlord notified the resident’s mortgage lender (the bank) that there were service charge arrears on the resident’s account.
The landlord has a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) about services charges (on its website as part of its information pack). It contains guidance for leaseholders. The FAQs say if a leaseholder does not pay their service charge, the landlord will follow processes which are set out in the property lease. It states it may contact the leaseholders mortgage provider about the arrears.
The resident’s lease states they authorise the landlord to disclose to any mortgagee their personal information relating to the provisions of the lease, including details of any service charge arrears.
When the landlord notified the resident’s bank of the service charge arrears on her account, it acted in line with its policy, and the notification was allowed under the terms of the resident’s lease. There is no provision we have identified which required the landlord to notify the mortgagee that service charge arrears were in dispute. This leads to a determination of no maladministration in the landlord’s response the resident’s concerns about it notifying her bank about service charge arrears.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. Its complaint policy is compliant with the our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It took the landlord 13 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and 35 working days to respond at stage 2. This was outside the landlord’s response timescale of 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and the total of 25 working days for stage 2 complaints. The landlord did make the resident aware there would be a delay to provide its stage 2 response.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay at both stages of its complaint process. It offered compensation of £65 for taking too long to reply at both stages. This compensation award is in line with an amount we would calculate using our remedies guidance and as such we consider the offer was proportionate to the failings we have identified. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress, in that the landlord has made an offer of compensation which satisfactorily resolves 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.