Peabody Trust (202319678)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319678

Peabody Trust

26 August 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. A gas check appointment.
    2. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2 bedroom house.
  2. The resident had previous concerns with the landlord’s handling of gas safety check appointments over several years. He told the landlord’s contractor on 14 November 2021 he received a letter about a gas check. He said he believed the best time for an appointment was in January 2022 and his deadline date was 18 January 2022, as such there was plenty of time to schedule the check. He told it he would not respond to appointments made without his agreement and he required appointments in the afternoon due to his poor health. The parties agreed an appointment the following day for 7 January 2022 in the afternoon.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 1 December 2021 as the contractor sent him a letter with a new appointment for a morning (it is unclear when the suggested appointment was for). He said he had told them over the years that he could not have morning appointments. He said they would probably say this was a random appointment, but it had years to refine its computer system so that it could enter people’s preferences.
  4. The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 13 December 2021. He said he received another letter from the landlord’s contractor telling him they expected him to agree a final appointment on 17 December 2021, and it fixed the appointment for the morning. He had not received a response to his stage 1 complaint which he had made almost 3 weeks prior. The resident said the letter repeated the statement made in previous years that he must provide access within 1 calendar year of the last service date. He also said this was incorrect and a breach of the regulations as his deadline was 18 January 2022. He said its approach amounted to harassment and any forced entry was illegal.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 13 January 2022. It apologised that the issue occurred again and said it understood why he asked about changing the contractor’s computer system to reflect booked appointments. It explained its legal obligation around gas safety checks, and the need to put in the process it had. There would be some residents like him who find it a continuing source of frustration but overall, it is a system and process that works for the vast majority of residents, ensuring that they stay safe and that the landlord meets its regulatory and legal obligations. It said it was pleased that its contractor successfully completed the safety check on 7 January 2022 in line with the appointment made by him.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 11 February 2022. It said the due date for the resident’s annual service was 18 January 2022, which meant it must complete the gas check before this date. It acknowledged a service failure, and it apologised for the service it provided. It acknowledged it did not fully address his concerns. It:
    1. Said the letter posted by its contractor was a clear administrative error, and they were aware they completed the gas check on 7 January 2022. They should have checked their records before sending someone to place the letter on his door.
    2. Acknowledged the automated letters were factually incorrect around completing the safety check within 1 calendar year. It said it must carry out his gas check each year, and it can do it within 2 months of its due date. It had provided its findings to the relevant team and requested they review its letters.
    3. To put things right, it acknowledged the failures in dealing with his complaint and awarded him compensation. It awarded £75 for its handling of the complaint. It also awarded £50 for the distress the letter placed on his door caused him.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to us on 29 April 2022. He told us in December 2024 as a resolution, he wanted the landlord to acknowledge the system it used was not suitable or user friendly, and he wanted it to record that he only needed afternoon appointments.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised complaints about the same issue across 2 previous years. We investigated these complaints under case references 201912330 and 202205160. The resident told us that similar issues occurred in 2023 and 2024, and we can see that the resident raised further complaints with the landlord. As these issues occurred after the initial referral to us in 2022 and were subject to another complaints process, we will not include them in this investigation. For the sake of clarity, we shall only investigate the issues which occurred between 14 November 2021 and 11 February 2022.
  2. The resident has raised concerns around harassment. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the landlord’s actions amount to harassment. We can however consider the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions when arranging for an annual gas safety check.

A Gas safety appointment

  1. The landlord acknowledged that there was a service failure in its handling of the resident’s concerns. It awarded the resident compensation of £50. While this goes some way in acknowledging its failings, we do not believe it goes far enough. This is because the landlord only acknowledged some of its failings in the matter (administrative error around the letter on the resident’s door, and incorrect information provided in a letter about timescales for carrying out gas safety checks).
  2. The landlord has a legal responsibility to ensure that it completes a gas safety check within the appropriate timeframes. However, its actions in continually sending letters despite the resident booking the required gas safety appointment caused him frustration and inconvenience and this is inappropriate. While it explained that the letters were automated, we would reasonably expect it to have a method of pausing the automated letters once the resident confirmed an appointment with it.
  3. The landlord states that the process is automated, however, the matter clearly led to distress for the resident, shown through his repeated complaints. Therefore, we would expect the landlord to review what action it could take to address the situation. It has not shown that it looked to see if there was a way resolve the matter. This is especially important given that some of the letters threatened forced entry into the resident’s property, despite him reasonably providing arrangements to grant access so it could meet its obligations. This is especially important as the issue had been ongoing and had generated several complaints from the resident.
  4. We understand that the letters help both the landlord and residents in completing the necessary actions, however, the landlord must still consider an individual resident’s circumstances. This is especially so as it continued to threaten action after it has completed the gas safety check by putting notices in the resident’s letterbox and on his door.
  5. The resident also told the landlord that he needed afternoon appointments due to his health. The appointment letters it sent him repeatedly provided morning appointments, and this was inappropriate. We would expect the landlord to note its system around the resident’s preferences, especially if they were due to his health as he explained. We would also expect any communication to reflect the resident’s agreed adjustment. Based on this we find that there was service failure. We have ordered that it take necessary action to try resolve this.

The complaint

  1. The landlord operated a 2 stage complaints process. It said it would log a new complaint within 5 working days. It would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days unless it needed an extension. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of a request.
  2. The landlord acknowledged that there were “failings” with its complaint handling. It acknowledged that when it recorded the resident’s complaint it did not fully address his concerns. It offered the resident compensation of £75. As such in this instance, our role is to consider whether there were any other failings in the landlord’s complaint handling it failed to recognise and decide whether its offer of redress was reasonable.
  3. While the landlord acknowledged “failings” in its approach, it only addressed 1 of these in its complaint response. As such it is unclear what other failings it found in its approach. The resident raised his complaint on 1 December 2021, and the landlord responded on 13 January 2022. Between this time, he asked to escalate his complaint. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 December 2021 and apologised for the delay, explained the reason for this, and said it would resolve the issue by 7 January 2022. It also told him it could not escalate his complaint. This means that its response was 4 days later than promised.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 18 January 2022. Its response was due on 15 February 2022, and it responded on 11 February 2022 which was reasonable.
  5. While there was a delay at stage 1, a typo in the landlord’s response, and a failure to address all the resident’s concerns within its response. There is no evidence of significant detriment to the resident around these issues. The landlord also appropriately acknowledged its failing in not considering all the resident’s concerns. Based on this, we find that there was reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of a gas safety appointment.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £100 for its handling of the gas safety appointment.
    3. Investigate if there is any way it can resolve the ongoing issue around the appointment bookings. For example, if it can pause the letters going out once a resident books an appointment, or if it needs to include a statement advising residents to ignore the letter if they have already booked an appointment. It must provide the results of its investigation to the Ombudsman and resident and explain which action it aims to take. If it does not aim to take any action, it must explain why.
    4. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.