Peabody Trust (202338280)

Decision
Case ID	202338280
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	10 March 2026

Background

1. The property is a flat in a block. In August 2022 the resident asked the landlord why it had removed the communal fire alarm system. She believed this left residents at risk. The landlord apologised she had not been told about this in advance. It confirmed the block had a ‘stay put’ policy in the event of a fire, so the alarm was not required. It said this should not have been installed.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about the communal fire alarm being removed.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the communal fire alarm being removed.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
5. The landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident for its complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord acknowledged delays and communication failures in its response to the resident’s concerns about the communal fire alarm being removed. It offered redress but this was  insufficient considering the circumstances, and it did not address all of the resident’s concerns. This means it did not fully put things right for the resident, leaving her distressed and worried for her safety.
7. There were significant delays and communication failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. It offered appropriate redress to put things right, which went beyond the recommendations in its compensation policy. This showed it had properly recognised its failures and the impact on 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.

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: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 07 April 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £475 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its response to her concerns about the communal fire alarm being removed (inclusive of the £300 already offered).	No later than 07 April 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should take all reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns about the communal fire alarm being removed and respond to the best of its ability, if she wishes to pursue this matter further.
The landlord should pay the resident the £400 compensation already offered for its complaint handling. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 June 2023	The resident complained to the landlord that it had removed the communal fire alarm system without consulting residents. She said she had sent numerous emails about this but not received any answers. She asked how it could include fire safety works in the service charge but not be able to explain what it had done. She said she wanted an explanation and a copy of the fire risk assessment (FRA) to be sent to her.
3 August 2023	The landlord replied but not as part of a formal stage 1 response. It said it should have consulted with residents about the removal of the alarm system and apologised that it did not. It said the alarm was removed because the block had a ‘stay put’ policy and buildings with this did not normally have a communal alarm system. It said it did not provide FRA’s to residents.
7 August 2023	The resident said the landlord had not properly answered her queries and its response was unacceptable. She said the alarm had been installed because of a previous independent surveyor’s recommendation. If this was an error, she felt the landlord should refund all charges for the installation and management of this. She asked it to reinstall the alarm.
8 December 2023	The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised that it had not formally responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. It summarised the information given in its email of 3 August 2023 and acknowledged there had been poor service, delays and communication and complaint handling failures. It apologised and offered £700 compensation (£300 for its response to her concerns about the communal fire alarm being removed and £400 for its complaint handling).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident has told us she sold the property in October 2024. She said the landlord did not adequately answer her queries and she felt the complaint investigation was not done thoroughly. She declined the compensation offered at stage 2 at the time as she wanted it to reinstall the fire alarm.

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	Communal fire alarm being removed
Finding	Maladministration

8. The resident’s lease agreement said the landlord was responsible for maintaining the structure of the building, including communal areas, services and installations. This included the communal fire alarm system.
9. The landlord said it removed the communal fire alarm because the block had a ‘stay put’ policy and so did not need this. This is in line with government guidance that says fire alarm systems are not appropriate in the common parts of blocks that are built in such a way as to support a ‘stay put’ strategy. The landlord’s reply to the resident’s query in 2022 confirmed the block had no defects and was low risk, meaning an evacuation strategy was not needed. Based on this, it was reasonable that the landlord decided to remove the alarm system.
10. While the landlord’s decision was reasonable, how it handled this was not. The landlord did not tell the resident in advance that it would be removing this or the reasons why. This meant the first she knew about it was when operatives attended to remove this. This caused upset, distress and worry as she was left concerned that the building was at greater risk without the alarm system. The landlord subsequently acknowledged it should have told residents about this in advance, which was appropriate.
11. The landlord told the resident the alarm should not have been installed. She questioned this because it was installed as a result of a recommendation by an independent surveyor in 2009. The landlord never responded to this query, which was disappointing for the resident. After her contact of 7 August 2023, the landlord asked internally for help in responding to the queries as the issues involved a report from more than 10 years ago. It said this was before the staff at that time had worked there. As the report and installation of the fire alarm was an historic issue it was understandable that staff may not have been aware of the circumstances of this.
12. However, the landlord should have investigated this to find out what had happened and why so it could answer the resident’s queries and reassure her it was taking the correct action. Its failure to do this left her feeling uncertain and concerned for her safety. We recognise that answering queries about historical issues can be difficult for landlords due to staff changes and a lack of records. If the landlord was unable to respond to the resident’s queries, it should have told her this. Its failure to respond at all left her feeling ignored.
13. The resident raised queries about the service charge in relation to the fire alarm. This included asking for a refund for the installation and management of this on the basis that the landlord said it had been installed incorrectly. We cannot assess the reasonableness of a charge or order the landlord to issue refunds. What we have assessed is how the landlord responded to the resident’s queries. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s queries regarding the service charge. In its email of 3 August 2023, from the fire safety team, the landlord said it could not comment on the service charge as it did not deal with this and asked her to contact the relevant team.
14. It was reasonable that the fire safety team could not answer the resident’s queries about the service charge. However, it should not have told the resident to make further enquiries about this as she had already raised these on multiple occasions, including via a formal complaint. The landlord should have coordinated a response to all of the queries from different departments and provided this to the resident, rather than expecting her to spend time and effort raising queries with multiple departments.
15. The resident did not get answers to the queries she raised before she moved out of the property in October 2024. As she no longer lives there, it is no longer vital that she receives answers to these as she is not affected by this matter anymore. For this reason, we have not ordered the landlord to provide answers to these queries. However, if the resident wishes to pursue this matter, we recommend the landlord takes all reasonable steps to investigate the concerns and respond to the best of its ability.
16. The resident asked for copies of the FRA for the block, which the landlord declined to provide. The landlord is not required to share copies of FRA’s with residents. However, considering the circumstances of this matter, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to share this, or at least provide a written summary of the outcome of the most recent FRA. This would have helped reassure the resident of the safety of the block and shown her the landlord was being open and transparent in its actions. Its failure to do so added to her safety concerns.
17. In November 2023 the resident sent a photo of a notice that had been put up in the building that said in the event of a fire the strategy for the building was full evacuation. She challenged this because she had previously been told the fire alarm had been removed because the building had a stay put policy. The landlord said in the stage 2 response this notice had been put up in error.
18. While errors can happen, this was an avoidable error that should not have happened. The notice put up was in direct contradiction to information previously given to the resident. This caused confusion and additional worry for her about the safety of the block. The landlord said it provided training for staff following this error, which was positive. However, it is important the landlord delivers proactive, role-specific training to staff to try and minimise the chance of these types of errors occurring in the first place.
19. The landlord’s communication in respect of this matter was poor. While it responded promptly to the original enquiry in August 2022, it should have told the resident in advance what it was doing. After the initial response, the resident said she raised further queries about this in 2022 and early 2023 but did not get responses to any of these. The landlord subsequently said this was because she was using an incorrect email address.
20. The landlord cannot be expected to respond to enquiries it does not receive. However, the resident said a number of these queries were raised internally by staff in other departments she had contacted. The lack of response to these suggests the landlord’s internal communication processes were inadequate and left the resident with unanswered queries for an extended period. Even after the resident raised her complaint, she had to chase repeatedly for answers. By the time the landlord sent the stage 2 response 16 months after the alarm was removed, she had still not been given answers to all of her queries and concerns. This caused her to lose faith in the landlord and added to her concerns about fire safety in the building.
21. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised, offered £300 compensation and identified learning. This was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles to put things right and learn from outcomes. While positive that the landlord did this, its response to the complaint did not address all of the resident’s concerns and so did not fully put things right for her.
22. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer between £251 and £450 for moderate disruption. This is where a service failure has occurred with either a low impact/ high effort to resolve or high impact/ low effort to resolve. The resident spent considerable time and effort seeking answers to her queries, but never received these.
23. Similarly, as the resident’s concerns were about fire safety of the building over an extended period, the lack of answers was very distressing and worrying for her. Therefore, the landlord should have considered redress for extensive disruption, which its compensation policy says it will pay between £451 and £650. This is where service failure has occurred and there has been a high impact/ high effort to resolve and a failure to communicate.
24. As the landlord’s response to the complaint failed to put things right for the resident and it did not offer sufficient redress, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £475 compensation (inclusive of the £300 already offered).

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

25. The landlord’s complaints process at the time of the resident’s complaint said it would log new complaints within 5 working days, respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
26. The landlord logged and acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 3 July 2023, 2 working days after this was raised. This was in line with the committed timescale. The landlord never formally responded to the stage 1 complaint. However, it did informally respond on 3 August 2023. This was 23 working days after the acknowledgement and over the 10 working day committed response time.
27. The landlord should have made this a formal stage 1 response and included the relevant information to identify it as such, including escalation rights if the resident remained dissatisfied. Its failure to do so meant the resident was left uncertain on what was happening with her complaint and believing this had been ignored.
28. On 20 July 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord replied 4 days later acknowledging the stage 2 complaint. As the landlord had not responded to the complaint at stage 1, it was inappropriate for it to escalate this. The landlord identified this error on 1 August 2023 and an internal email was sent. However, there is no evidence the resident was told about this, leaving her confused about what stage her complaint was at.
29. As the landlord’s email of 3 August 2023 should have been the formal stage 1 response, it should have treated the resident’s reply of 7 August 2023 as the escalation request. It failed to do this and it was only after the resident made contact on at least 3 more occasions that it escalated the complaint and told the resident it had done this, on 12 October 2023. The landlord sent the stage 2 response in 88 working days, significantly over the committed timescale set out in its policy.
30. The landlord told the resident it had extended the stage 2 response deadline on 2 and 15 November 2023. This was in line with its policy that said if it needed more time it would explain this to the resident and confirm a timeframe for when it would respond. The landlord failed to meet the extended deadlines and it was only after at least 2 more contacts from the resident in November 2023 that it sent the response. This was frustrating for the resident and made her believe it was not taking the complaint seriously.
31. In total the resident’s complaint took 115 working days to complete the landlord’s internal process, compared to a committed timescale of 35 working days. This equates to a delay of over 11 weeks. During the period of delay the resident went to considerable efforts to chase the landlord for the responses, with few updates being provided. Even when it did give updates, it did not keep to its commitments. This caused the resident to lose trust and faith in the landlord.
32. The landlord acknowledged failure in its complaint handling, apologised, offered £400 compensation and identified learning. Its compensation policy says it will offer between £201 and £300 for severe failure in its complaint handling. The landlord’s offer was more than this, which was appropriate considering the extent of the failures and showed it had recognised these and the impact on the resident.
33. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider the extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed its failures, as well as the appropriateness of any redress it has offered. This is as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
34. Considering the full circumstances of the case, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the complaint. We recommend it pays the resident the £400 compensation already offered. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Learning

35. If a resident asks for a copy of a FRA, the landlord should share this with them, where possible. If it cannot, it should provide a written summary of this so they are kept informed and reassured about any fire safety concerns.
36. The landlord should deliver proactive, role-specific training to staff to minimise the chance of avoidable errors being made.
37. The landlord should formally respond to complaints at both stages of its complaints process, in line with its policy committed timescales. It should not escalate complaints until it has responded at stage 1. Where it extends response deadlines, it should keep to the extended deadlines or tell residents if it cannot.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. No record keeping issues were identified as part of this investigation. The records provided were sufficient for us to complete the investigation.

Communication

39. The landlord should respond to all queries in a timely manner. Where queries relate to historic actions or decisions, it should take reasonable steps to investigate these. If it cannot respond to specific queries because they are about historic actions, it should tell the resident this. The landlord should not rely on residents chasing to respond to enquiries. We encourage the landlord to access training via our centre for learning to help improve its communication.
40.  The landlord should address all issues raised as part of a formal complaint. If this requires answers from multiple departments, it should coordinate this and not tell the resident to re-raise queries with multiple service areas.