Peabody Trust (202532554)

Background

1. The resident raised a complaint on 15 January 2025 and requested reimbursement for the reduced scheme manager hours provided. She raised a further complaint on 17 June 2025 as the landlord had failed to provide bank statements demonstrating the sinking fund was in an appropriate account. She also raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of the sale of the scheme manager’s flat, as she did not think the landlord had reasonably shared the profit. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she wanted the landlord to provide sufficient bank statements for the funds, provide a refund due to the absence of the service manager, and answer her questions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s request for information about the reserve and maintenance funds.
   2. The resident’s request for reimbursement due to the absence of a scheme manager.
   3. The resident’s concerns about the sale of the scheme manager’s property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint has also been considered.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about the reserve and maintenance funds.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement due to the absence of a scheme manager.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the sale of the scheme manager’s property.
7. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Reasons

8. 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.

The resident’s request for information about the reserve and maintenance funds

9. In her complaint on 17 June 2025, the resident said that the landlord had failed to provide bank statements showing the sinking and maintenance funds were in a properly ring-fenced account, solely attributed to the resident’s block. It is unclear when she initially requested the information. The landlord’s service charge policy states it will hold sinking funds in a specially designated interest-bearing account, and the funds for each scheme or block will be separately identifiable. It will provide statements of the reserve fund annually, with the annual service charge statements.
10. In its complaint response, the landlord said there was a delay in the accounts being processed caused by the external auditors, which was outside of its control. However, this explanation does not reasonably address the resident’s specific request. The resident asked the landlord to immediately provide the sinking fund bank statements, as they did not require auditor certification. The landlord’s service charge policy sets a reasonable expectation that the funds are held in an identifiable and designated account, so it should be able to promptly obtain the statements on request. The landlord did not explain why it was unable to do so.
11. It is understood that the sinking and maintenance fund balances may have been subject to change if the service charge accounts had not yet been finalised. However, the underlying reason for the resident’s request was assurance that the funds were held in an appropriate bank account. The landlord should have promptly obtained and provided evidence to address her concerns.
12. In its stage 2 response on 22 August 2025, the landlord said it had issued the 2022/23 and 2023/24 service charge statements, which included the sinking and maintenance fund balances. It said it had requested access to the bank statements from the service charge accountant, and it would provide a further response by 2 October 2025. Given the resident’s repeated request, there were several missed opportunities to take such steps to obtain the information at an earlier date.
13. Under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985), variable service charge payers may, within 6 months of receiving the service charge account summary, request in writing for the landlord to provide facilities for the inspection of the accounts, invoices, records, and any other documents supporting that summary. The landlord must provide the facilities within 1 month of the request. Bank statements evidencing sinking funds would fall within the scope of “supporting documents”. There is no evidence the landlord adhered to the timeframe, and the resident told the Service the matter is still outstanding.
14. To resolve the complaint, the landlord must provide copies of the sinking and maintenance fund bank statements, as requested. The landlord offered £100 compensation in its final response in recognition of the time the resident spent seeking clarity and updates. We have acted on the assumption that £50 each was allocated to the handling of the resident’s request for sinking fund bank statements and her concerns about the reduction in scheme manager service. An additional £50 compensation is warranted due to additional time the matter has been outstanding.

The resident’s request for reimbursement due to the absence of a scheme manager

What we have not considered

15. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident raised concerns regarding the insufficient scheme manager service dating back to 2018. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when she became aware of the issue. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the complaint about issues dating back to 2018.

What we have considered

16. The lease states that the resident will benefit from 24-hour cover provided by a resident manager or an emergency call centre. It also states the landlord can determine at its discretion from time to time whether to hire a relief resident manager or deputise the resident manager.
17. In her complaint, the resident raised concerns that she had been paying for a scheme manager for 20 hours a week, but there had been substantial time periods there was either no scheme manager or only a temporary scheme manager for 4 hours a week. She provided the Service with meeting minutes from the residents’ committee, requesting £6542 credit for the lack of scheme manager for 379 hours between June and November 2024.
18. The landlord said that costs were attributed to the scheme manager, including relief management cover. The lease allows the landlord to hire a relief manager, so it is entitled to recoup these cost within the service charge. However, if there was a significant reduction in service, it should ensure that the costs were appropriate and it only recharged for the actual costs it incurred.
19. The 2022/23 service charge account shows the actual costs incurred for staff were £11.29 lower than estimated, and the staff costs for 2023/24 were £4.75 higher than estimated. In its final response, the landlord noted discussions were ongoing to provide a detailed breakdown of the charges due and clarify the timelines of the scheme manager relief cover between 2023 and May 2025. The landlord should have clear records of the scheme manager attendance so it can accurately evidence how costs have been incurred and ensure that any service charges are transparent, reasonable, and supported by verifiable records. There is no evidence this information has since been provided or that it completed a review, so it has failed to address the resident’s concerns.
20. Overall, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence for the resident to confirm for herself whether it had properly accounted for the reduced scheme manager service. As noted above, we have considered the landlord’s compensation offer of £50 for the lack of timely updates provided regarding the scheme manager service. An additional £50 is warranted due to the additional time and trouble she incurred pursuing the issue and its failure to fulfil the promised actions in the final response. It must also review the scheme manager service charge.

The resident’s concerns about the sale of the scheme manager’s property

21. The lease agreement states that the landlord will “provide or procure the services of a Resident Manager whose terms and conditions of employment shall require him or her to reside in the Resident Manager’s dwelling on the estate (unless the Company shall otherwise determine)”. The landlord proposed changing the scheme manager role from residential to visiting, which the lease grants it discretion to do.
22. Given the impact on the service provided to residents, it was reasonable that the landlord consulted prior to changing the service and facilitated a vote on whether to change the service from a residential scheme manager to visiting. This was in line with its service charge policy which states it will consult with residents regarding changes to existing services. The residents voted in favour of a visiting service, so the landlord sold the scheme manager’s flat.
23. The resident raised concerns that the vote was required in an unreasonably short 2-week timeframe, and the landlord did not provide sufficient financial information. There is no evidence that the resident raised concerns at the time about the voting timeframe or requested an extension. The landlord therefore did not have the opportunity to address the matter or change the timeframe provided. The landlord said that it did not share financial information, as it was not adjusting the scheme manager’s role or hours. The landlord’s actions were reasonable considering the nature of the proposed change.
24. In her complaint, the resident raised concerns that the profit from the sale of the scheme manager’s property was not fairly shared between the residents and the landlord. She said the estimated sale price was £200,000 and the landlord was deducting £555 from each resident’s service charges. She referred to the flat as a “common asset”. However, the landlord owned the flat, and the lease does not include any provision that entitled residents to a share of any sale proceeds. The resident has not provided any other evidence that she should have benefited from the sale of the property or that the landlord was not entitled to sell the property. As such, there is no evidence of failing by the landlord.
25. The resident also told the Service that the sale of the property impacted the resale value of her property. We do not have sufficient evidence to consider this claim, nor was it raised to the landlord within the complaint.

Complaint handling

26. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (“the Code”) states that the landlord must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of being received, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 within 20 working days.
27. The resident initially raised a complaint on 15 January 2025. She then raised concerns on 17 January 2025 that the landlord had incorrectly closed the complaint. Although it provided a response to her queries on 19 February 2025, this was not a formal complaint response. It therefore did not provide the resident the opportunity to refer the matter for independent review, so delayed a full resolution.
28. The resident then raised a further complaint on 17 June 2025, and the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 10 July 2025. This slightly exceeded the appropriate response timeframe. She then escalated the complaint on 16 July 2025, and the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 22 August 2025. It was appropriate that the landlord recognised the delay and offered £50 compensation.
29. As the landlord did not acknowledge its failing to appropriately respond to the resident’s initial complaint or take steps to put things right, it should pay an additional £50 compensation.

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.

Recommendations

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