Peabody Trust (202013016)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013016

Peabody Trust

28 February 2022


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 response to a dispute from the Resident’s Association concerning the cost of major works.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder in a flat on the ground floor of a block, the freehold of which is owned by the landlord, and has no vulnerabilities recorded.

The lease

  1. The lease for the property commenced in January 2005 for 125 years.

The complaints policy

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says at Section 5.3 that stage one complaints will be answered in 10 working days and stage two in 15 working days.
  2. The complaints procedure says at Section 4.2 that a complaint may be in the form of a petition and will be treated as one complaint and addressed to the first signatory. Section 6.4 says that leaseholder complaints relating to the setting of service charges can be referred to the First Tier Tribunal.

The compensation policy

  1. The compensation policy says at section 3.1 that compensation may be paid when a person has experienced a delay, or the landlord has failed to meet published guidelines including poor complaint handling. Section 7.1 provides a scale for poor complaint handling up to a maximum of £100, including moderate failure at between £26 and £75 when a failure to follow the complaint policy has resulted in inconvenience 

Summary of events

  1. The Residents Association (RA) for the resident’s block of flats made a petition complaint to the landlord, regarding the cost of major works in December 2020. It was logged in the name of the RA’s chairman.
  2. Following contact from this Service, on 4 February 2021 the landlord said that it had not had contact from the resident since December 2020, which was regarding work to communal doors.
  3. On 10 March 2021, the landlord logged a complaint from the resident relating to the cost of major works and the lack of response from the landlord. The resident said that he had not received a response to his earlier complaint made in mid-December 2020. He said that his complaint was twofold, that he has had no response since mid-December and that the original complaint raised last July 2020 had not been resolved.
  4. The landlord called the resident on 11 March 2021 when he said he had made several complaints since December 2020 and at least nine phone calls. The landlord discussed the RA complaint having been raised but said that the details could not be discussed.
  5. On 29 March 2021, the landlord emailed the resident concerning the complaint, but addressed the email to the RA chairman. The landlord said that the investigation was ongoing. On 7 May 2021, the landlord advised this Service that it had contacted the resident to confirm that his complaint had been escalated to stage two of the complaint process. This was followed by an update on 11 May 2021 when the landlord said that there had been a delay in allocating the complaint due to the number of complaints outstanding. The resident replied on the next day and said he wanted a reply to the report sent in last May.
  6. The landlord replied to ask the resident what he remained dissatisfied with and said that a response would be made by 16 June 2021.
  7. An internal email on 21 June 2021 said that the landlord had not sent the stage one complaint response, but given the delay, a stage two response should be sent. The same day an update was sent to the resident which apologised for the further delay and said it would be in touch by 30 June 2021. A further update was sent on 30 June 2021 when the landlord said it would respond in the next three working days.
  8. The stage two complaint response was sent on 5 July 2021 as follows:
    1. The chairman of the RA had made a complaint on 1 December 2020, but this was not responded to, so the resident made the same complaint which was logged on 10 March 2021.
    2. The complaint was concerning a challenge against a major works bill, and the communication from the landlord in respect of this.
    3. There had been a restructure in the landlord’s organisation which, in addition to the national lockdown, had impacted on its response.
    4. The resident should have been told when the complaint was logged that the matter was already in progress with the RA and the landlord would not log another complaint about the same issue. This had not happened, and the landlord had fed back to the team and senior staff. The landlord updated the resident on the complaint logged by the chairman of the RA and said that ultimately it might be better suited to a First-Tier tribunal.
    5. The resident did not receive a stage one response and had not received the correct advice prior to that date, almost four months later. Compensation of £50 was offered for the lack of appropriate information and delays in the complaint procedure. Appeal rights to this Service were given.
  9. The same day, a letter was sent to the chairman of the RA, to explain the confusion between the two complaints and that all future communication regarding the major works bill would be via him in respect of the earlier complaint, in line with its complaint process.

Since the stage two response 

  1. The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 July 2021, thanked it for the reply and said he now considered the matter closed and attached the compensation form.
  2. The resident then wrote to the landlord on 29 September 2021 and said ‘we have not received contact’ as promised and therefore would be contacting this Service. The landlord replied to the resident the next day, apologised for further delay and said it would revert by 15 October 2021 regarding the outstanding leaseholder account.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord again on 1 October 2021, and it replied on 15 October 2021. The resident sent further chase emails on 26 October 2021 and 4 November 2021 and advised this Service on 8 November 2021 that he was still wating for the landlord’s formal response to the report relating to major works. The landlord responded to the resident on 19 November 2021, quoting the resident’s later complaint reference, but in relation to the RA complaint issue.

 

Assessment and findings

  1. This investigation is confined to the handling of the complaint submitted by the resident to the landlord, which concerned the delays in the response to the primary complaint from the RA. It does not consider the merits of the initial complaint. If the RA has a concern about the landlord’s administration of the service charge, it may make a formal complaint and ultimately refer to the Ombudsman. Any concern about the level of the service charge would be dealt with by a First-Tier tribunal and is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service. This is in accordance paragraph 39(g and i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which provides that ‘The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in his opinion:
    1. (g) Concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
    2. (i) Concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.’
  2. The landlord has acknowledged that it made an error in failing to quickly identify that the RA had already submitted a complaint on the issue of the major works bill, and that would be the lead complaint and contact would be with the chairman of the RA. This is in accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy which says that complaints in the form of a petition, (i.e., from a group of people) will be treated as one complaint and addressed to the first signatory. The landlord had logged the complaint in the name of the chairman of the RA, but then in effect logged a duplicate from the resident.
  3. The landlord’s complaints procedure says that complaints will be answered in 10 working days at stage one, and 15 working days at stage two. In this instance, the complaint from the resident was logged on 10 March 2021 and only one final response was issued, on 5 July 2021. The landlord has explained that this was due to the number of complaints outstanding. In fact, it would have reduced the workload in this case had it noticed the duplication earlier, but it is noted that the final response acknowledges the error and says that the landlord will be more mindful of this in the future.
  4. The resident was misled for four months, but as the original complaint had been logged by the landlord, this in itself was not the cause of the delays in the correct case being responded to.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy Section 7.1 provides a scale for poor complaint handling up to a maximum of £100, including moderate failure at between £26 and £75 when a failure to follow the complaint policy has resulted in inconvenience. The landlord has offered £50, and this was accepted by the resident and seems an appropriate sum to settle this type of complaint in all of the circumstances.
  6. It is noted that after the final response, which explained that the landlord would correspond only with the chairman of the RA in future in respect of the major works bill, it continued to reply to contact made by the resident. This has the potential of confusing the process further. If the landlord has changed its position since the final response and is now addressing the resident about the major works bill, it may help to clarify this to all parties to avoid further confusion.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Scheme, the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s remedy was reasonable in the circumstances.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord: 
    1. Clarify if the contact arrangements for the initial RA complaint have changed, since that outlined in the final response, to avoid further confusion.
    2. Pay the sum of £50 already offered if it has not done so already.