Peabody Trust (202123937)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123937

Peabody Trust

20 April 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s request for information on service charges.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord’s property. The property is a flat located on the ninth floor of a purpose built building. The building is managed by a managing agent.
On 12 December 2021 the resident made a request, under section 22 of the Landlord Tenant Act 1985 (the Act), to obtain details of the superior landlord, with the view of inspecting accounts relating to service charges for the property.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on 13 December. It advised that the resident’s “request to view invoices for the actual service charge accounts” had been logged. It was added that due to (then current) Covid-19 restrictions, its offices were closed. Once the offices had reopened, it would contact the resident to arrange an appointment to inspect the invoices at its offices.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response on 14 December. He explained that he had asked for the details of the superior landlord. He stated that the landlord was obliged to provide this under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The resident chased a response to his email at the beginning of January before asking for the matter to be raised as a formal complaint.
The landlord did not log the complaint initially, and the resident chased up the matter on 7 and 10 January. By 28 January, the resident had yet to receive a response to his complaint and contacted this Service for assistance. After intervention from the Service, the landlord provided a stage one response to the complaint on 31 January.
Within the stage one response, the landlord advised that as it was not the superior landlord of the development, it had therefore made a request on the resident’s behalf under section 22 of the Act. The landlord also provided some invoices relating to the 2020/21 financial year, and the name and address for the superior landlord. It added that it would contact the resident once the superior landlord had confirmed a date for them to attend the office.
The resident responded on the same day, and thanked the landlord for providing the details of the superior landlord. He expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that it had been necessary to involve this Service to receive a response; and that the landlord had made the section 22 request on his behalf. The resident advised that given his concern, he would await a final response regarding his complaint. The resident received no response to his email, and chased the matter on 4 March. Within his correspondence, he reiterated that he wished for the complaint to be considered at stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident clarified that the reasons for escalation were that no further response was received to the stage one complaint, and that the response itself was not detailed enough.
The landlord sent the stage two response on 29 March. The response advised that, although the stage one response was written as a formal stage one response, it did not meet the requirements of what would be expected in a stage one response. The landlord went on to explain that it was apparent that no proper investigation had taken place at stage one. It advised that it was not intentionally pushing back against leaseholders requesting information from the superior landlord, and that the staff member who had dealt with the initial request had not realised that there was a superior landlord.
The landlord did uphold the resident’s stage two complaint over poor complaint handling, and offered compensation of £75. The landlord also indicated that there would be a change in process to ensure complaints were dealt with more efficiently. On 11 April the resident responded to the stage two response advising that he felt that the complaint had been interpreted as just a customer service issue, and he had never made a request to be provided with “invoices”, as the landlord had suggested. The resident advised that he had followed the law in relation to the section 22 request, but the landlord had not. He added that the offer of compensation was an attempt to buy him off, and the level of the offer did not reflect the gravity of the situation.
On 13 April the landlord responded to the resident’s points that they raised in response to the stage two letter. The landlord advised that the use of the term ‘invoices’ was just a difference in terminology used, and was not a deliberate attempt to restrict the section 22 request to only provide invoices. The landlord re-iterated that it was clear that the resident’s initial request had not been properly read. It stated that it could not change what had happened, but acknowledged that when the request was receive, it should have provided the contact details for the superior landlord. The offer of compensation was increased to £100.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s approach to the handling of the section 22 request, and the handling of the complaint. He attempted to contact the landlord further about the matter at the end of April. As the resident received no further response, he contacted this Service and asked us to investigate the concerns he had raised.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In correspondence to both this Service and the landlord, the resident has expressed concern that the landlord has failed to comply with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The resident has also advised that he believes that the landlord has committed a criminal offence.
While the resident’s concerns and comments are acknowledged, it is not for this Service to decide whether an offence has been committed. Rather, our role is to consider the evidence that is available and determine whether the landlord has complied with its duties and obligations; and if not, what steps it has taken to put things right. The resident should legal advice in the event that he wishes to prosecute the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for service charge information

Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) gives leaseholders the right to ask their landlord to supply a summary of the relevant costs, which make up their service charges, for the last accounting period. The summary should be compiled by a qualified professional. A resident’s request must be submitted to the landlord in writing.
Section 22 of the Act gives leaseholders the right to inspect any receipts or invoices which support the landlord’s service charge figures. The request must be made within six months of receiving the summary. Requests must again be submitted in writing. The landlord must provide facilities for inspecting the information within one month of the request, and the facility must extend for a period of two months.
Section 23 contains provisions governing section 21 or 22 requests in situations where the requested information is held by a superior landlord. They apply when the request relates to costs incurred by or on behalf of the superior landlord. It confirms:
1. A landlord that does not possess the relevant information to comply with a section 21 request shall, in turn, make a written request to the person or party that is its landlord for the relevant information. The superior landlord shall then comply within a reasonable timeframe.
2. On receipt of a section 22 request, the landlord shall immediately inform the resident of the circumstances and provide the name and address of the superior landlord. Section 22 shall then apply to the superior landlord in the same way it applies to the landlord.
When the resident wrote to the landlord on 7 December 2021, he was clear in stating that his request was being made under section 22, and that he wished to be provided with the details of the superior landlord. The landlord responded to the resident’s request on 13 December; however, its response was inappropriate and it failed to provide the resident with the information he had requested.
As a result, the resident wrote to the landlord on 14 December, and reiterated that he wished to be provided with the details of the superior landlord. The resident added that the landlord had failed to comply with its obligations under the Act. The landlord failed to respond, and the resident chased the matter in January 2022. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that it responded to the resident’s email of 14 December 2021. That it did not was a failing in its handling of the matter, and a missed opportunity to understand the resident’s concerns and try to put things right.
As the landlord failed to respond, the resident contacted this Service for assistance. The landlord subsequently issued a stage one complaint response on 31 January, and within this provided the resident with the details of the superior landlord. The landlord also advised that it had made a request to the superior landlord on the resident’s behalf.
It is also acknowledged that the resident was concerned by the landlord’s decision to make the request on his behalf. While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, this was not inappropriate and is provided for by the Act. A landlord may make a request to a superior landlord on a resident’s behalf, and in some instances this may avoid the possibility of the superior landlord rejecting any direct request from the resident in error.
When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage two, it advised that the member of staff who had dealt with the request was unaware that it was “a management agent who was responsible to provide invoices”. As a result, the request had not been dealt with appropriately. However, the situation was understood by the member of staff who responded to the stage one complaint, and the correct information was provided as a result. In recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing the matter, the landlord offered £25 compensation. While the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response is acknowledged, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had deliberately tried to frustrate the resident’s request for information; and the landlord’s response was therefore appropriate in this regard. The offer of compensation, however, was not proportionate in the circumstances and we have addressed this further below.
During the course of the complaint, the resident also expressed concern with the landlord’s use of the word “invoices”, and that he believed the landlord was attempting to restrict the scope of the documents requested, to invoices only. While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, the evidence suggests that the use of the word “invoice” stemmed from a misunderstanding on behalf of the member of staff who picked up the resident’s request for information. No evidence can be found which would suggest that there was a deliberate attempt to restrict the request to invoices only. Indeed it is noted that within the stage one response, the landlord confirmed that the resident would be able to attend the superior landlord’s office to “inspect their invoices, receipts and any other supporting documents”.
The provision under section 23 of the Act is that information relating to the superior landlord should have been provided “forthwith”. It is not for this Service to interpret the meaning of the word “forthwith”; but it is acknowledged that such requests should be responded to with a level of immediacy. The evidence provided to this Service shows that it took the landlord 55 calendar days to provide the resident with the information about the superior landlord that he had requested. As such, there was a failure by the landlord to comply with its obligations under the Act. The landlord failed to acknowledge this when it responded to the resident’s complaint; and as a result, has failed to put things right.
As detailed above, the landlord offered the resident £25 for the time and trouble he had been caused in pursuing the matter. Based on the evidence that is available, and noting that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s email of 14 December, this offer was not proportionate. We have also considered the impact of the landlord’s failure to provide the resident with the correct information in a timely manner. As such, we have made a series of orders to ensure that the resident is compensated for the inconvenience he experienced, and to ensure that similar errors are not made in the future.

The handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s formal complaints policy consists of a two stage complaints procedure. Stage one investigations will be dealt with by a case manager in the relevant service area. If the issue is not resolved, the complaint can be escalated to stage two, and will be dealt with by the landlord’s customer experience team. Complaints can be made by various media including email.
Under the landlord’s compensation policy it can award a maximum of £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience caused. The policy breaks this down further, with ranges of compensation related to the impact on the resident and the efforts made to resolve. The compensation policy also states that a maximum of £100 can be awarded for not adhering to the complaints policy.
When the resident contacted the landlord on 14 December, it was clear that he was dissatisfied with how his request had been handled. This should reasonably have been sufficient for the landlord to regard the matter as a complaint. Instead, the resident was left to chase a response to his correspondence and sought assistance from this Service, before the matter was dealt with as a complaint.
When the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns at stage one, it did not demonstrate that it had investigated any of the issues raised. Rather, the landlord provided an explanation regarding the role of the superior landlord – of which the resident was already aware – provided its contact details, and advised that it would be in touch once the service charge information was ready to inspect. This was not an appropriate response. The complaint response gave no clear indication of whether the resident’s complaint had been upheld or not, and contained no further information on resolution, or escalating the complaint.
The inadequacy of the stage one response was acknowledged by the landlord at stage two of its procedure. Within this, the landlord confirmed that the stage one response “did not meet the requirement” that would be expected. This was appropriate. The landlord also offered £50 for the inconvenience caused by the “poor complaint response”.
The resident contacted the landlord following the stage two response, as he felt that the underlying reasons for the complaint had still not been addressed. The landlord provided a further response and acknowledged that it had not read the resident’s section 22 request properly which led to it providing a standard response. The landlord suggested that if it had it responded correctly in the first instance, it may not have not been necessary for the resident to raise a complaint. The landlord added that in view of the resident’s comments and the time he had taken to pursue the matter, it wished to increase its offer to £100 compensation. The evidence suggests that the landlord had increased its total offer to £100, and not just the element for time and trouble. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide a breakdown of the amounts, as it had done within the stage two response, for clarity.
As such, this Service has not identified any further failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. On the basis of the evidence that is available, the landlord’s offer of £75 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the complaint handling was proportionate in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information on service charges.
In relation to the complaint handling, in accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Re-offer the £100 compensation that was offered in April 2022, if not previously accepted.
3. Pay the resident a total of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to comply with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
4. Review its Service Charge policy and consider whether it is necessary to amend the policy so that it includes further details about responding to requests under sections 21 to 23 of the Act.
5. Provide staff with further training and/or guidance on requests made under sections 21-23 of the Act.