Peabody Trust (201912025)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912025

Peabody Trust

4 December 2020


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:
    1. response to the resident’s reports that other residents were allowing strangers to access the building;
    2. response to the resident’s reports that other residents had left their personal property in a communal area causing a hazard; and
    3. complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph X of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect/s of the complaint is/are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and Summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 4 January 1994. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The property is a flat within a building comprised of multiple flats and a common area.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that “when an expression of dissatisfaction is received, we would first look to resolve the matter locally” and that “if this approach has not reached the desired resolution … it can be registered and dealt with as a formal complaint by contacting the local team or registering a formal complaint.”
  4. The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes that general compensation may be offered for “time, trouble and inconvenience,” or for “complaint handling.” The policy also notes that £1 to £100 may be offered for “minor disruption” and that £1 to £25 can be offered for a “minor failure” in complaint handling.

Summary of events

  1. The resident contacted this service on 12 December 2019 and reported her concerns regarding other residents allowing strangers to access the building. She advised she was concerned that her ex-partner may try to gain access to the building. She further reported her concerns that other residents had left their personal property in a communal area causing a hazard and that she had reported her concerns to the landlord but had not received a response. This service subsequently contacted the landlord on 18 February 2020 to request that it provide a response under its complaints procedure. The landlord confirmed on 13 March 2020 that it had lodged the complaint and would respond in due course.
  2. The landlord provided its stage one response on 19 March 2020. It confirmed that following the resident’s reports in October and November 2019, it had written to the other residents in the building “requesting that they refrain from letting non-residents into the block that they are not expecting and requested that they are mindful about security and safety issues.” It also recommended that the resident should continue to report any incidents regarding her ex-partner to both it and the police. Regarding the personal property left in the communal area, the landlord noted it had already “confirmed with you that those items had since been cleared,” but that it would “[revisit] your block to reinspect the cupboard area as residents may have returned their items following the initial removal.” It advised that it would consider taking action against residents that “failed to adhere to our requests regarding the security and fire risks to your building.” It also advised that due to the COVID-19 restrictions, this could take some time.
  3. The resident replied on 23 March 2020 and disputed that the landlord had attended the building or contacted her to confirm the personal property had been removed, noting she had “not heard from anyone since and to say he has spoken to me and I confirmed the hallway was all cleared is categorically a lie.” The resident reiterated that the other residents’ personal property remained in the communal area and that she could provide photos if required. The resident advised she had arranged for the Fire Service to inspect the area. The resident also confirmed she had received the landlord’s letter regarding access to the building.
  4. On the same date, the landlord advised it would reinvestigate but reiterated that due to COVID-19 rules “it may be sometime before [it] is able to visit the block.” It also requested that the resident provide the suggested photos to assist it. On the same date, the resident advised she considered it insufficient for the landlord to have contacted the current residents requesting they remove their personal property as she had previously advised that some of it belonged to former residents and it was “unreasonable to then expect current tenants to clear it.” She subsequently requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two. The landlord replied on the same date to request it be given the opportunity to resolve the complaint prior to escalation of the complaint, however, the resident requested that landlord progress to a stage two response “given how much time has already passed.” On 24 March 2020, the landlord confirmed it had escalated the complaint and would provide its stage two response by 17 April 2020.
  5. On 14 May 2020, the landlord provided its final response. It noted that the resident’s initial reports had not been “raised as formal complaints” and it had only raised a formal complaint on 13 March 2020 following a communication from this service. Regarding other residents allowing strangers to access the building, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s safety concerns in relation to her ex-partner and reiterated that it had written to the other residents reminding them of their responsibilities. It also reiterated that the resident should continue to report any incidents to the police.
  6. Regarding the personal property left in the communal area, the landlord noted the resident had made her initial report following the landlord’s letter to the residents advising them to keep the common area clear. The landlord also noted the resident disputed it had contacted her but advised that its housing officer had attended the building on 22 January 2020 and had subsequently advised her “that the cupboard was cleared.” It further noted that the resident had initially reported her concerns on 28 October 2019 and 7 November 2019, which were “not resolved until 28 November and 12 December 2019 respectively,” and that it “should have followed up with you sooner.” It reiterated that it would “revisit the block to inspect the communal area and cupboard … once restrictions are lifted.” It concluded by acknowledging its “delay in providing this response” and offering £50 compensation for “delays in communication and complaint handling.”
  7. On 10 September 2020, the resident reported to this service that the personal property left in the communal area still remained. She further provided a letter from the Fire Service dated 9 September 2020 which advised that on its visit to the building “the lower ground storage cupboard is filled to excess preventing the fire door from being locked shut.” The resident has advised the Fire Service has contacted the landlord to report its findings.

Assessment and Findings

Reports that other residents were allowing strangers to access the building

  1. Following the resident’s reports in October 2019 that other residents were allowing strangers to access the building, the landlord responded appropriately by advising the resident that it would send letters to remind the other residents of their obligations regarding building security. While this service has not been provided with a copy of this letter, it is not disputed that it was sent out. The resident has also advised she understands that it is hard for the landlord to police this issue.
  2. In its initial and final response, the landlord also appropriately expressed understanding of the resident’s concerns regarding her ex-partner, and appropriately advised her to continue to report any further incidents to both it and the police.  Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about other people accessing the building was appropriate in the circumstances.   

Reports that other residents had left their personal property in a communal area causing a hazard

  1. The landlord has advised that it initially contacted the residents to advise that there was personal property in the communal area. Following the resident’s reports that the personal property remained in the communal area, it was reasonable that it did not take immediate action as it had already taken steps to address the issue with its initial letter to residents.
  2. The landlord has advised that it attended the property on 22 January 2020 and noted the communal area had been cleared. The resident has disputed that the landlord attended the building, however, it is not evident on what basis she has made this assertion. Following the resident’s further reports that the issue remained, it was appropriate for the landlord to advise in both its initial response and final response that it would reattend the building to investigate, and it was reasonable that it advised that it would be unable to do so while COVID-19 restrictions were in place.
  3. While the resident has advised that the personal property potentially belongs to previous residents, it was reasonable for the landlord to first attempt to determine whether any of the personal property belonged to current residents. Given that the landlord was unable to attend, it would have been helpful to have written to the other residents over the period affected by COVID-19 restrictions to further request that any property be removed. It would have also been helpful to the resident for the landlord to have advised what other steps it would take to determine this, and to advise what steps it would take should the property be found to be abandoned.
  4. It was also appropriate for the landlord to articulate to the resident in its final response that it understood the importance of fire safety in the building. While the resident has advised this service that the personal property remains in the communal area, and that the Fire Service have confirmed the same, the Ombudsman recognises that some services may continue to be disrupted by the current COVID-19 restrictions.

Complaints handling

  1. As noted by the landlord in its final response and in accordance with its complaints procedure, the landlord initially considered the resident’s concerns to be an informal report, rather than a formal complaint. This is in line with what the Ombudsman would expect in this situation. This service has not been provided with any evidence that the resident requested for the landlord to consider her reports as a formal complaint prior to the communication by this service in February 2020. It is therefore reasonable that the landlord did not provide a formal response until 19 March 2020, having previously attempted to resolve the matter informally.
  2. As noted above, it is disputed as to whether the landlord contacted the resident following its visit to the building to assess the personal property in the communal area. The landlord has, however, appropriately acknowledged that the time that elapsed between the resident’s initial reports in October 2019 and its visit contributed to the resident’s concerns and that it should have followed up with the resident sooner. It has also appropriately advised that it will use this experience to improve its service in future.
  3. Following the landlord’s initial response and the resident’s further reports that the issue remained, it was reasonable for the landlord to request further time to address the issue. It was appropriate, however, for it to progress the complaint to stage two in a timely manner following the resident’s request.
  4. In its correspondence dated 24 March 2020, the landlord advised it would provide its stage two response by 17 April 2020, however, it did not provide its final response until 14 May 2020. It is not evident that the landlord contacted the resident to advise that the response would be delayed, which would have been helpful for the resident. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this delay in its final response and considered it when making an offer of compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it is also best practice to offer an apology for any delayed responses, which the landlord did not do on this occasion. 
  5. Given the landlord’s delay in following up the resident’s initial reports, and its delay in providing a final response, it is appropriate that the landlord has made an offer of compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount of £50 is reasonable as it is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and what the Ombudsman would generally expect in this situation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding:
    1. the resident’s reports that other residents were allowing strangers to access the building; and
    2. the resident’s reports that other residents had left their personal property in a communal area causing a hazard.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord offered reasonable redress for the service failures identified with its complaints handling.

Reasons

Reports that other residents were allowing strangers to access the building

  1. The landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns by reminding the other residents of their obligations and advising the resident to continue to report any further incidents.

Reports that other residents had left their personal property in a communal area causing a hazard

  1. The landlord took appropriate action, having requested residents remove their personal property in its initial letter and further investigating after the resident’s initial reports. It also appropriately confirmed in both its initial and final response that it will attend the building again to investigate once it is able to do so following the relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions.

Complaints handling

  1. Given that the landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s initial reports and in providing its final response, it is appropriate it offered compensation. The Ombudsman considers this to be a reasonable offer of redress in recognition of the service failure identified.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to pay the resident the £50 compensation it previously offered, if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord to write to the resident to provide an update on its inspection of the communal area and to advise either what steps it has taken to address the issue, and its position following the Fire Service inspection or what steps it will take should the issue remain.
  3. The landlord to write to all residents to request they remove their personal property from the communal area if the landlord is unable to attend the building within four weeks of the date of this determination due to COVID-19 restrictions.