The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today. 

Peabody Trust (202111453)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111453

Peabody Trust

30 January 2024


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:
    1. The residents report of disturbance from delivery men ringing his doorbell.
    2. The residents’ concerns in relation to the introduction of parking management.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord with an assured tenancy agreement, starting June 2014. The property is a 1-bedroom flat, located on the first floor, there is parking to the rear of the block and the tenancy agreement says no garage is provided.
  2. In April 2021, the resident reported that he was receiving “unwanted calls from delivery drivers” ringing his doorbell at all hours. He said that the delivery men were looking for the block behind his, however due to insufficient address signage, attended his property by mistake. This in turn was disturbing him. The landlord responded by saying that there were notices at both the front and rear of his block. The signs were close to the doors and sufficiently advised anyone where they were. Furthermore, it would not be supplying any more signs.
  3. The evidence shows that the resident continued to raise further complaints in relation to being disturbed by the deliveries which he said was affecting his mental health. He then raised a formal complaint on 26 July 2021. The landlord responded on 3 September 2021 saying it had taken on board what the resident had said and would be arranging for further signage to be positioned on the rear communal entrance door. It hoped that that would resolve the issues the resident was experiencing.
  4. In September 2021, the landlord wrote to residents of the block advising it would be looking to introduce parking enforcement. It explained the aim was to reduce non-resident parking on the estate, as a result of the local council implementing pay parking in the surrounding area. Each household would require a permit, however before any works would be carried out, it would like to know residents’ views about the proposed improvements. The resident contacted the landlord in October 2021 requesting further details in relation to the permit scheme and its cost. The landlord wrote to all residents providing details of the permit costs, which would be charged per annum and the company enforcing the scheme. It confirmed that it would contact residents before enforcement commenced.
  5. On 23 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord saying he was unhappy with the implementation of the permit scheme and that he did not receive a response to his emails of October 2021. The landlord responded on 1 December 2021 at stage 1 saying it agreed to provide additional signage to the rear door of the building and apologised that its response had not been clear and was delayed. It said it did not uphold his complaint as he had previously been informed of the action it was taking to prevent further unwanted calls to his home.
  6. In December 2021, the resident raised a stage 2 complaint as he was unhappy that no signage had been installed and he felt there was no issue with parking as there were only 2 cars using 8 available spaces. The landlord wrote to all residents saying that the parking enforcement service would be a trial basis for a year.
  7. The landlord did not formally respond at stage 2 until March 2022 and sent a final response in April 2022. It apologised for not responding and advised the resident that the signage would be installed the week commencing 11 April 2022. It awarded the resident £200 compensation for the delay in installing the signage and its delay at stage 2.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and advised this Service that he was unhappy that his complaints were not upheld and the level of compensation he was awarded.
  9. In January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord saying he had not received any information in relation to reviewing the parking permit scheme. He recently advised this Service that he was of the understanding that the parking scheme was still in place. Therefore, this service contacted the landlord who advised there was no parking enforcement scheme in place.

Assessment and findings

The residents report of disturbance from delivery men ringing his doorbell.

  1. The resident reported issues with disturbance from unwanted deliveries in April 2021 and explained the disturbance was affecting his mental health. The landlord responded on 28 April 2021 saying the signage was sufficient. This was not appropriate as the landlord made this decision without visiting the area and carrying out an up-to-date inspection of the signage.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 July 2021 in relation to his reports of disturbance. A response was sent on 3 September 2021 explaining that an inspection had been carried out of the signage and the landlord had “taken on board” what the resident and would be arranging further signage. Notwithstanding the delay, this was appropriate, and resolution focused.
  3. Nevertheless, its stage 2 response was resolution focus as it had explained it had ordered the additional signage and would install it once it had arrived. Furthermore, it awarded the resident £150 for the delay in installing the sign. Whilst it was appropriate to award compensation, this amount does not reflect the impact the continued disturbance the resident said had on him.
  4. In addition, despite agreeing to install additional signage in September 2021, December 2021, and March 2022 the signage was not installed until July 2022. This was 15 months after the residents’ initial reports. This was not appropriate. The resident had explained the issue was affecting his mental health and the delay contributed to his continued disturbance.
  5. In its stage 2 response, which was the final stage of the landlord’s complaint process, it awarded the resident £150 compensation and said it would install signage. The Ombudsman would have considered this reasonable redress at that point in time. However, the installation of the signage was delayed by 4 months, therefore this service has awarded an additional £50 compensation.
  6. Given the above, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the residents reports of disturbance from delivery men ringing his doorbell and £200 compensation has been ordered to be paid to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused to him. This is including the £150 already offered to the resident.

The residents’ concerns in relation to the introduction of parking management.

  1. The landlord’s parking policy says:
    1. The aim is to provide a sustainable, safe, and attractive environment for its residents by effectively managing parking on its land.
    2. Where it believes it is necessary or it has been requested by residents it may introduce parking controls in order to ensure its service meets the needs of both drivers and non-drivers. For example, by way of a permit scheme.
    3. It usually consulted residents before introducing parking controls in existing neighbourhoods in order to tailor it as far as possible to their needs and encourage them to take ownership of parking.
  2. Under the “your rights” section of the resident’s tenancy agreement it says the landlord will consult residents before it takes certain action which includes significant changes to any of the services it provides to the estate.
  3. On 24 of September 2021 the landlord wrote to all residents in relation to a parking permit scheme it was considering introducing. It went on to explain some details of the permit scheme and it wanted to know residents’ views about the proposed improvement. This was appropriate and in line with its parking policy which says it will consult residents before introducing parking controls. In addition, it adhered to the tenancy conditions outlined in the resident’s tenancy agreement which says it will consult residents before making any significant changes in the services it provides to the estate.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 and 10 October 2021 following the consultation letter about parking and asked for further information. He expressed his dissatisfaction and that he would be raising a complaint to this service. Despite this the landlord failed to recognise the resident wanted to raise a formal complaint which was not appropriate.
  5. He raised the matter again on 23 November 2021 saying he had not had a response from his email of 10 October 2021. This was frustrating for the resident having to chase the matter and delayed in getting the matter resolved.
  6. The landlord wrote to all residents on 12 November 2021 providing details of costs for the permit scheme. Although this was appropriate to provide the costs to residents, it could not be considered as a response to the resident as it was a general response, and he was not responded to directly.
  7. On 12 July 2022, the landlord contacted the resident confirming it had carried out a consultation and the number of residents that agreed to the parking enforcement. It explained the implementation was a trial basis and a follow up consultation would take place in September 2022. This was appropriate and informative.
  8. The landlord sent an additional response on 27 July 2022 to the resident saying that the resident has exhausted its complaints process, and a response was provided at stage 2 along with an additional letter on 12 July 2022. Therefore, his complaint was closed. This was not appropriate as it was an additional response that was not required and delayed the resident in pursuing his complaint via this service.
  9. On 14 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to the continuation of the permit scheme as he said residents had not been consulted and the scheme was unnecessary. The landlord responded the next day saying it would respond within 10 days. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint nevertheless there is no evidence that this was responded to.
  10. The landlord contacted all residents to arrange a meeting to discuss matters however the landlord said only 1 resident responded. It was appropriate that the landlord made contact with other residents to review the scheme however it was out of the landlord’s control that not all residents responded.
  11. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to update the resident on its final decision of the scheme. The resident recently told this service that signs remain in situ on the estate in relation to a parking permit scheme being in place. This is confusing for the resident and in turn frustrating that he has received no clarification on the situation despite his requests.
  12. In summary, the landlord acted within its policy when consulting residents about the proposed parking permit scheme. The landlord’s decision to implement the scheme on a trial basis was fair and it was a decision the landlord was entitled to make when managing its estates.
  13. However, the landlord failed to directly respond to the resident following his email of 14 December 2021 and failed to update him on the final decision of the scheme following the trial basis.
  14. Therefore, as outlined above there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the residents’ concerns in relation to the introduction of parking management. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, £50 compensation has been ordered to be paid to the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process where responses are required within 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 working days for stage 2.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 July 2021. The resident contacted the landlord again on 27 August 2021 saying that he had not had a response to his stage 1 complaint. It was not appropriate that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s first request, as it was not in line with its complaints policy whereby stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days.
  3. On 10 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord expressing dissatisfaction and that he would raise the matter with this service. The evidence shows the landlord failed to recognise this should have been raised as a formal complaint which is not appropriate.
  4. The resident raised the matter again on 23 November 2021 saying he did not receive a response. The evidence shows that no formal response was sent until December 2021 which was significantly outside of its response times for stage 1. This was frustrating for the resident and delayed in getting the matters resolved and clarified.
  5. Furthermore, it said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint despite apologising that its response was “not clear and delayed.” This was not appropriate and was confusing and frustrating for the resident.
  6. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. By failing to uphold the resident’s complaint the landlord failed to identify any learning outcomes which is not appropriate. Recognising the need to learn could prevent failures of this kind occurring again, in turn reducing the impact on the resident when trying to pursue matters.
  7. The resident requested to raise his complaint to stage 2 on 3 December 2021 as he felt nothing had been done in relation to the signage. He chased the matter further on 7 March 2022 as he had not received a response. A holding reply was sent to the resident on 18 March 2022, and it sent its stage 2 response 87 working days later, which was significantly outside of its policy timescale.
  8. In addition, it was not appropriate that the landlord failed to respond to the resident initial escalation request which was frustrating for him having to chase the matter.
  9. Although the landlord wrote to all residents providing this information, the landlord failed to formally write to the resident at stage 2. This was not appropriate.
  10. In summary, the landlord initially failed to respond at stage one of its complaints process and was delayed in responding at stage 2. Although it awarded the resident £50 compensation this did not reflect the impact on the resident.
  11. Therefore, given the above the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, £150 compensation has been ordered to be paid to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in:
    1. Its response to the residents reports of disturbance from delivery men ringing his doorbell.
    2. Its response to the residents’ concerns in relation to the introduction of parking management.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
  2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £400 made up of:
    1. £200 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience arising from the landlord’s response to the residents reports of disturbance from delivery men ringing his doorbell.
    2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience in relation to its response to the resident’s complaint.
    3. £50 for the distress and inconvenient in relation to its response to the residents’ concerns in relation to the introduction of parking management.
    4. This can be reduced by a compensation already paid.
  3. Confirm to the resident in writing the current position in relation to the parking permit scheme.

Recommendations

  1. Completion of this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/ if this has not been done recently.