Peabody Trust (202337488)

Decision
Case ID	202337488
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peabody Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	30 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives on a mixed tenure estate which has access to a car park, communal gardens, and bike storage. He complained about parking and security problems.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of parking access, enforcement, and related security concerns.
3. We have also investigated its complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of parking access, enforcement, and related security concerns.
5. There was reasonable redress in its complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord delayed parking enforcement and did not give clear updates, but this caused limited impact and the compensation offered put things right.
7. The landlord’s complaint handling caused delay and inconvenience. The compensation offered fairly reflected the limited impact. The landlord showed it had learned from its errors.

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
The landlord should pay the resident the £80 compensation offered during its complaint procedure (if it has not already). The reasonable redress findings are made on that basis.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 October 2023	The resident complained about parking and security on the estate. He said parking enforcement was on hold. He said this led to unauthorised parking, blocked bays, and abusive behaviour. He said social housing residents were responsible. He asked the landlord to reinstate parking enforcement. He also asked it to prevent access to the car park for people who did not have an allocated space. He asked it to block rear exits in blocks that house social housing tenants to prevent them accessing the car park area.
31 October 2023	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay in reinstating parking enforcement. It said social housing residents had access rights to all communal areas. It said the local authority’s planning team approved the estate layout. It said the layout reflected transport policy that promotes sustainable travel.
13 November 2023	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said the estate design was flawed and should be reviewed considering recent problems. He said the landlord had not communicated about the parking enforcement delays. He suggested ways to stop unauthorised use of the car park. He said the landlord had not answered all the issues raised at stage 1.
16 November 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint. On 7 December it asked the resident to agree an extension for its reply to 15 December 2023. On 19 December it asked for a further extension to 5 January 2024.
10 January 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: the local authority had approved the estate design the same access arrangements applied to all tenures changes, such as walls or bollards, would be impractical or need planning approval claims about social housing residents were not proven and reports of antisocial behaviour required specific evidence it accepted there had been delays and poor communication it accepted gaps in the stage 1 response internal system issues delayed parking enforcement, and it did not provide clear updates to residents it apologised for missed deadlines and limited earlier responses It offered £30 compensation for complaint handling failures and £50 for time and trouble.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident complained to us. He said the landlord repeated its responses at stage 2, refused physical changes to the estate, and offered compensation that was too low.

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 handling of parking access, enforcement, and related security concerns.
Finding	Reasonable redress

8. The landlord’s Parking Policy aims to keep parking areas safe and well managed. The landlord may introduce parking controls when problems arise.
9. The Estate Management Policy says the landlord must keep communal areas safe and secure. It should involve residents when it changes or introduces services.
10. The ASB Policy says the landlord must assess reports. It needs clear and specific evidence to progress ASB cases.
11. The resident first raised parking concerns with the landlord in March 2023. We have not seen evidence of how the landlord responded. This may indicate potential gaps in its record keeping.
12. He contacted the landlord again in August 2023. He said the parking enforcement contractor was not patrolling the estate. He also said some cars were parking without permits. The landlord’s records show it contacted the contractor and arranged a visit to the estate.
13. In his complaints, the resident suggested ways to address parking and security issues. He asked the landlord to restrict access from social housing blocks. He asked it to block rear exits or change the estate layout. He suggested the addition of collapsing bollards to parking bays.
14. The landlord considered these requests. It said it could not reasonably carry them out. It explained that planning approval set the estate layout and access routes. It also said all residents share equal rights to communal areas through the service charge arrangements. It told the resident it was committed to meeting diverse housing needs within the community.
15. In these circumstances, the landlord could refuse the resident’s requests. The requests would have restricted shared access to communal areas. They would also have required changes that the landlord’s policies or planning approval do not allow. The measures would have limited agreed shared rights. The landlord did not have to take these steps under its policies, declined to do so, and set out the reasons for its position.
16. The Parking Policy allows the landlord to manage and enforce parking arrangements but does not require it to make structural changes to the estate. It allows discretion on controls like bollards but does not require their installation. The landlord considered the options raised. It explained why walls or bollards were impractical. That was reasonable.
17. The resident also raised concerns about the behaviour of some resident groups in relation to parking and use of communal areas. He did not provide evidence to support his concerns. The landlord explained that the estate has a mixed‑tenure design. It said all residents share access to communal areas. It said parking issues are not linked to tenure and can involve any resident. The landlord said it needs clear and specific evidence before it can consider or take ASB action.
18. The landlord did not manage all aspects of the issues well. Parking enforcement remained on hold for a prolonged period. The landlord accepted that it did not give regular or proactive updates during this time. This did not meet its policy duty to explain changes to services. We did not see evidence that the landlord considered interim estate management measures while enforcement was on hold. This meant it missed an opportunity to address the resident’s concerns. However, the landlord’s policies give it discretion in this area. They do not require it to introduce temporary measures.
19. The evidence does not show that these shortcomings caused significant or lasting harm to the resident. The resident felt frustrated by delays in enforcement and problems with using the car park. However, he did not suffer financial loss or a safety incident. The delay did not worsen the parking issues in any materially significant or obvious way. The impact was limited to the time and trouble he spent reporting his concerns.
20. Overall, the landlord did not fully meet its service standards. It delayed parking enforcement and did not give clear or regular updates. The landlord recognised this, apologised and offered £50 in compensation for time and trouble. In line with our compensation guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy, £50 was proportionate given the limited impact. We therefore find that the landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of parking access, enforcement, and related security issues.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

21. The landlord’s Complaints Policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code). It states it will acknowledge, define, and log a complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 at stage 2.
22. The landlord’s Compensation and Remedies Policy allows it to offer redress for poor service or delay. The amount should match the impact on the resident. This includes time and trouble. The policy also applies when the landlord does not follow the complaints process or causes avoidable delay.
23. The landlord did not manage the complaint in line with its policy. The stage 1 response did not address all aspects of the complaint. The landlord also delayed the stage 2 response. The resident had to chase the landlord for information.
24. These failings caused delay and additional time and trouble for the resident. The landlord accepted these shortcomings at stage 2. It apologised and explained what went wrong. The landlord offered £30 in compensation for its complaint handling failures.
25. The evidence does not show that the complaint handling caused serious or lasting harm. The resident experienced delay and inconvenience only. The landlord offered compensation that matched this level of impact and followed both our compensation guidance and its own policy. It explained changes it was making to improve its complaint handling, showing it had learned from its errors. We therefore find that the landlord provided reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Learning

26. Early complaint responses need to address all points raised. Gaps in the stage 1 response meant issues carried forward and required escalation.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. Gaps in records and system issues can disrupt services for prolonged periods if not resolved quickly.

Communication

28. Communication with residents during service disruption is critical. Where enforcement was on hold, the landlord did not give regular or proactive updates. This increased frustration and led to repeated contact.