Peabody Trust (202121591)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121591

Peabody Trust

13 August 2024


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within its jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within its jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
    1. Administration of residents’ service charge accounts and its calculation of charges.
    2. Residents’ reports of leaks and heating repairs (across various properties in the building).
    3. Formal complaint.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. 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, it is determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident has occupied his property, an eighth storey apartment, on a shared ownership basis, since 2015. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 28 January 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to complain on behalf of a residents’ association (the Association). The letter explained that the residents were disputing their service charges and were dissatisfied with the service charge information provided by the landlord. It also stated that the landlord had failed to meet its repairing and maintenance obligations in relation to leaks and heating repairs in various properties.
  3. In the landlord’s response of 5 February 2021 it detailed the service charge information it had provided to residents and explained its charges administration process. It then advised that the heating system servicing had been rolled out in 2020.
  4. The landlord issued a further response on 4 March 2021 when it provided clarification on its (and its managing agent’s) service charge processes and addressed the Association’s specific concerns around the services they were receiving. It then detailed its response to the leak reports and heating issues across various properties. It said it was carrying out a reconciliation exercise and would write again when this was complete.
  5. The resident wrote to the landlord on behalf of the Association 4 times between March and June 2021, objecting to its response to the complaint.
  6. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 28 March 2022, when it provided further information on its accounting practises since 2019 and the reasons for delays in accurate information being provided to residents. It confirmed that the managing agent’s charges had been correct. It advised that it was continuing to investigate and repair reported leaks but any damage to property would need to be claimed via the affected residents’ insurance. It then offered £30 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint.
  7. A further stage 2 response was issued by the landlord on 12 July 2022, when it acknowledged the Association’s view that its concerns had not been fully addressed. It provided further information on its accounting practises since 2019 and clarified the respective responsibilities of it and its managing agent. It suggested that the Association should seek independent legal advice or go to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) if it had concerns over apportionment of service charges. It then confirmed its position on the leaks, heating system servicing and security provision and increased its offer of compensation to £50.

Reasons

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider matters which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. This is because it is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether the service charge due from each resident for the services provided is payable or reasonable. That would be for the FTT to determine, and the landlord was therefore right to direct the Association in that way.
  2. Paragraph 41(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which were not referred to the Ombudsman by one of the people who can use the Scheme under paragraph 25. Paragraph 25 of the Scheme confirms that we consider complaints from individuals.
  3. Paragraph 26 goes on to state that ‘the Ombudsman may accept one complaint from more than one complainant or a group about the same member if the issues and facts are the same without carrying out multiple investigations’. We can, therefore, accept an individual complaint as a lead case and any decisions made in connection with it may also apply to others in the same circumstances, where the lead complainant is clearly representing named individuals.
  4. Therefore, we need to satisfy ourselves that the issues in dispute and the facts relating to the complaint are the same for all the residents involved if we are to deal with a case as a group complaint. In cases where the individual circumstances vary (although the issues may be similar) it is often not viable for the Ombudsman to investigate.
  5. In this case, the issues have been raised on behalf of the Association, and not a group of named individuals. It is also clear from the evidence that the issues complained about have not affected all residents (or members of the Association) in the same way, if at all. For example, individual properties have had differing experiences with leaks and heating repairs, and individual residents may not be equally concerned about, or affected by, the landlord’s accounting practises or complaint handling.
  6. As a result, it would not be possible, or fair, for the Ombudsman to conduct a meaningful investigation into the complaint on behalf of the Association. Therefore, the complaint detailed at paragraph 1 above falls outside this Service’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 41(a) of the Scheme, and will not be considered further.
  7. We accept that it has taken some time for the Ombudsman to reach this conclusion and we apologise for any inconvenience this has caused. Whilst the resident was notified of the jurisdictional limitations earlier in our process, it was necessary to conduct a comprehensive review of the evidence before we could confirm our position on the full complaint. Decisions of this nature can be complex and it is important that we take the time to make the correct decision.
  8. We appreciate the resident’s efforts in pursuing these matters on behalf of the collective and it is hoped that his involvement may lead to service improvements within the landlord. However, if individual residents would like the Ombudsman to consider their complaints, they are advised to pursue a complaint (directly or via a representative) in relation to their own specific circumstances.
  9. With that in mind, it is noted that the resident has made a separate complaint to the landlord regarding his personal experience with leaks in his property and it is his intention to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman. However, this Service has not yet received his referral or supporting evidence so that complaint is not currently within our jurisdiction for further consideration (in accordance with paragraph 35 of the Scheme).