Peabody Trust (202124265)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124265

Peabody Trust

27 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents:
1. Report that she could not access the communal garden.
2. Report that her front hedge was overgrown.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 7 October 2002. The landlord is a registered provided of social housing. The property is a 1 bedroom, first floor flat, and the resident lives on her own. The resident has an appointed representative, who for the purposes of this report will also be referred to as the resident.
The resident first reported to the landlord, on 14 June 2021, that she could no longer access her communal garden as the locks on the gate had been changed. She informed the landlord that a neighbour within her block had done this, and that they were refusing to give the resident a key. The landlord replied on the same day to acknowledge the issue and advised it would provide an update on a resolution as soon as possible. The landlord emailed the resident again on 13 October 2021 and advised the same.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 23 January 2022. The resident did not receive a response from the landlord and made her complaint to it on 7 February 2022. The key points were as follows:
1. She said that for the past 2 years she had not had access to the shared garden at the rear of the flats.
2. She stated that her neighbour was hiding the gate keys and refusing access to others in the block. She said that she felt she could not approach him, as he was “aggressive” and “threatening.”
3. She said that she had contacted the landlord on many occasions, but that the landlord had ignored her complaints.
4. She stated that the hedge at the front of the property which divided her block of flats, and the next, was overgrown. She said the landlord had refused to help with the maintenance of it.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 February 2022, and advised that it would visit her on 18 February 2022 to discuss the issues raised. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this visit.
Following 2 requests from this Service, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 8 June 2022. The response summarised the landlord’s understanding of the resident’s complaint. It advised that the issue with the resident’s neighbour was being addressed by its antisocial behaviour (ASB) team. It confirmed that it was arranging for the garden gate lock to be changed. It advised that it was awaiting a date from its contractors to attend to the overgrown hedge.
Following this, correspondence was sent to all the residents in the block, on 21 June 2022. It advised the locks would be changed and it reminded the residents it was a communal garden, and no one should be prevented from using it.
Internal communications show that the landlord had arranged with the neighbour to attend and change the lock in July 2022, but the neighbour had cancelled the appointment.
The resident chased the landlord for an update a further 4 times between June and August 2022. On each occasion the landlord advised the works had been raised for the gate, and that it was awaiting a date from its contractor. It further advised that its contractors had been commissioned to cut the hedge.
The resident requested information on how to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 27 June 2022.
In her email to the landlord on 4 August, the resident advised she was exhausted from having to chase the landlord. She said that she was 71 years old and was feeling suicidal and depressed.
The resident contacted this Service on 7 September 2022, stating that the issues were still ongoing, and requested her complaint be escalated. On 30 September, this Service asked the landlord to escalate the complaint, and to provide a response to the resident by 14 October 2022.
Internal emails show that the landlord then sought to resolve the issue. The emails acknowledged that the neighbour withholding access had been spoken to about allowing access previously. It acknowledged that it now needed to take action as the neighbour’s action was a breach of his tenancy. The lock was changed on 19 October 2022.
On 14 October 2022, the landlord requested, from this Service, a 10 day extension for its stage 2 response. It provided its response to the resident on 20 October 2022. The landlord’s key points were as follows:
1. It said that it had merged with another landlord, and so now had a different complaint policy from when the resident had initially raised her issues. It stated that this meant that the resident could not now raise anything that had occurred prior to its merger in September 2021.
2. It explained that it had been unable to reach agreement with the neighbour regarding the resident’s garden access. It said that, as such, it had raised a job in June 2022 to change the lock and keys.
3. It stated that several attempts to carry out the lock replacement had been undertaken but “for one reason for another” these were unsuccessful. It confirmed the locks had since been changed, and new keys issued.
4. It apologised for the delays and said it felt it had been slow to take effective action to resolve the issues and restore the residents right of access.
5. It said that it was aware the standard of customer care received was below that which it aimed to provide, and it would use the case as an example of where more effective communication would have been helpful. It confirmed that following a merger it had since reviewed its policies and practices.
6. It offered the resident £349.50 compensation, made up of the following:
  1. £149.50 for the loss of use of her garden between 1 May and 19 October 2022, which it said was based on 5% (£5.98) of the residents weekly rent over the 25 week period.
  2. £100 for the delays.
  3. £100 for its complaint handling.
7. It stated that it was not responsible for the hedge. It suggested that the resident speak to the neighbour and explain that the hedge was encroaching on her property.
In referring to this Service, the resident said she was not happy with the landlord’s response as it was aware in June 2021 that she did not have access to her garden, yet it had only offered compensation from February 2022. The resident requested that compensation be back dated until at least June 2021.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that a responsive repair is a maintenance activity where they restore something damaged or faulty to a good condition in response to a report. It states a non-urgent repair to rectify a fault would be completed within 28 days.
The landlord’s complaint policy has 2 stages. It will acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It would respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. At both stages, the time limit to respond would only be extended if more time was required and this would be communicated and agreed with a resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it would award the following compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience:
1. £1-£200 for a minor disruption.
2. £201-£400 for a moderate disruption.
3. £401-£600 for extensive disruption.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that for complaint handling it would award the following compensation:
1. £1-£50 for a minor failure.
2. £51-£150 for a moderate failure.
3. £151-£250 for a severe failure.
The compensation policy states that if a resident has not had full enjoyment of their home or garden area, they may consider compensation for lack of overall enjoyment. It states they would only consider a lack of garden enjoyment between 1 May and 31 October, capped up to a maximum of 5% of rent.

Garden gate lock.

The resident first reported that the locks had been changed on the communal garden gate on 14 June 2021. The landlord appropriately replied to the resident the same day. It said it had raised a repair with its housing team and asked for keys to be provided to all. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
On 13 October 2021, further correspondence was sent to all residents in the block in which the landlord advised a repair had been raised for the locks to be changed but that it did not have a date. This was 4 months after the resident had initially raised the matter and therefore 3 months outside of the landlord’s repairs policy. This was unreasonable. A landlord needs to ensure where issues have been raised, these are monitored and progressed in a timely manner. Where the landlord is aware there is a delay to resolving a repair, it should communicate that with the resident to manage the resident’s expectations.
The resident raised this again on 23 January 2022 and asked if they could pay someone private to undertake the lock change and provide the landlord with an invoice. There has been no evidence provided to show the landlord responded to this. The resident’s communication was another opportunity for the landlord to check its systems to ensure the repair had been raised, and to raise one if not. Not doing so, caused another unnecessary delay. It would have frustrated the resident who was, at this point, attempting to find her own solutions as the landlord was not resolving the matter.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 February 2022 and advised it would attend to change the lock; However, its letter contained no information on when the resident could expect the visit to take place. Had the landlord provided further information, it could have managed the resident’s expectations as to when to expect the lock change to be undertaken. Doing so, would have reassured the resident that it was working to resolve her issue and restore the use of her garden.
Further to this, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had raised a repair request in this instance. The landlord was aware the issue had been alive, at this point, for 8 months. Given that the landlords responsive repairs policy stated it would complete repairs within 28 days, it is unsatisfactory that it did not request a repair when it said it had. This ultimately led to the resident raising a complaint.
Following correspondence from this Service with regards to the complaint, the evidence suggested that despite the resident’s repeated requests for the matter to be resolved, the landlord lacked records of the garden access issue. The landlord’s systems that monitor and track repair requests need to be robust and efficient. It needs to ensure that where actions are raised, these are appropriately flagged and monitored.
Following involvement from this Service, internal emails in June 2022 highlighted an urgency on the landlord’s behalf to resolve the issue of the garden access. It is of concern to this Service that the landlord only felt an urgency to resolve the situation when it had received communication from the Ombudsman. The landlord’s delayed response, triggered only by involvement from this Service, disregarded the resident’s time spent pursing the matter. This is not in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. This lack of action, particularly during the summer months, denied the resident the opportunity to enjoy her garden.
Between June and August 2022, the resident followed up with the landlord a further four times, requesting an update on the lock replacement. The landlord indicated that a repair had been initiated and was awaiting an update from its contractor. However, considering that this timeline significantly exceeded the landlord’s 28-day repair policy, it was insufficient for the landlord to merely state that the repair had been raised. At this point, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to thoroughly communicate the reasons for the delay and provide a detailed update to manage the resident’s expectations.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord informed the resident that the access issue was being handled by the ASB team. While this was appropriate, the landlord missed an opportunity to clarify the case details and offer a potential resolution timeline or contact information for the ASB team. The lack of clarity implied that a resolution was in progress, but no evidence was provided to confirm this. Consequently, the resident, who had already invested time in seeking a resolution, likely felt frustrated.
The evidence suggests that the landlord had arranged for the locks to be changed in July 2022, but the neighbour had cancelled the appointment. No evidence has been provided to show that this was acted upon. While it was appropriate that the landlord raised the appointment, it was unreasonable that it did not follow-up the cancellation with the neighbour or carry out the lock change regardless of the neighbour’s compliance. Not doing so caused a further delay.
On 4 August 2022, the resident advised the landlord that she was exhausted from having to chase the landlord, and that she was feeling suicidal and depressed. It is of concern to this Service that there is no evidence to show the landlord acted upon those comments to ascertain if any support was required. Landlords have a duty of care towards their residents, and the landlord has failed to evidence that it showed any care towards the resident in this instance. This is not appropriate and would have left the resident feeling further exacerbated at the situation.
It was not until this Service requested the landlord to respond at stage 2, on 30 September 2022, that the landlord evidenced any real urgency to resolve the issue. At this point it pushed for the works to be undertaken. The lock was changed on 19 October 2022, 16 months after the resident had first reported it, and 15 months outside of its own repairs policy. It is again of concern that the landlord only felt an urgency to resolve the issue when communication from this Service had been received. This highlighted a disregard of the resident’s time spent pursuing a resolution to the matter. The landlord therefore failed to act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had attempted to resolve the issues but had been unsuccessful for “one reason or another”. Its response in this regard is dismissive in tone and failed to acknowledge the time taken by the resident to pursue the issue. Given the extensive delays, it could have given a more detailed and helpful explanation for the delays in this case. Doing so would have helped to build some trust and restore the landlord and resident relationship.
Internal emails show that, in October 2022, the landlord recognised the neighbour was breaching his tenancy for denying access to the communal garden. The landlord conceded that waiting for the neighbour’s agreement to provide keys was not the best way forward. It is concerning that it took 16 months for the landlord to acknowledge this breach, particularly considering the resident’s persistent efforts to seek resolution and emphasise the neighbour’s role in the access issue. This highlights the landlord’s lack of urgency in resolving the matter.
In its stage 2 response the landlord appropriately accepted that its standard of customer care was below that expected and apologised for the length of time taken to restore the right of access. While it is appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the failings and apologise for them, this came too late. The resident prompted the landlord repeatedly, it would have been reasonable on any of those occasions to check that a repair was in progress, and to raise one if not.
While the landlord did accept the failings in this case, the time taken for it to do so was unreasonable. The resident spent 16 months chasing the matter. During that time, the landlord consistently and repeatedly said it had raised a repair and gave reassurances that it would be completed. This was 16 months when the resident could not enjoy a space that she had the right to and was paying for access to. The landlord failed to appropriately acknowledge the impact on the resident of either the loss of her garden space, or the time and trouble that she went to chasing it.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports that she could not use her communal garden.
In concluding its complaint response, the landlord offered the resident compensation for loss of her garden calculated at 5% of her weekly rent from May to October 2022. This totalled £149.50 and it offered a further £100 for the delays. Given that the resident first raised this in June 2021, and the evidence shows that the landlord said it would raise a repair at that time, the compensation offered is not reflective of the detriment in this case. While the landlord followed its policy and offered compensation during the summer months only, given the resident consistently raised the matter, a compensation order has been made, inclusive of the winter months and in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. An order for compensation has made for £818.60, made up the following:
1. Reimbursement of 5% of the residents weekly rent for the loss of use of her garden between 14 June 2021 and 20 October 2022. This amounted to 70 x £5.98 = £418.60.
2. £300 for the delays in resolving the issue.
3. £100 for the time taken to pursue a resolution.

Overgrown hedge

No evidence has been provided to show when the resident first raised the overgrown hedge with the landlord; However, it was mentioned in her initial complaint on 7 February 2022. The landlord did not act on this request until its stage 1 response on 8 June 2022, which was 5 months later. The landlord should have addressed the request sooner or informed the resident of any known delays. Landlords must maintain efficient systems to track and monitor issues raised. Not doing so would have frustrated the resident.
The resident chased the landlord a further 5 times during June 2022, and each time the landlord told the resident it had raised the request with its contractors. The landlord would have been aware that the job would have been unlikely to have been undertaken within a few days. It therefore could have managed the expectations of the resident better by advising her that it may take some weeks for the contractor to attend. Doing so would have meant she did not need to expend time chasing a response.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord advised the resident that it was not responsible for the hedge cutting and advised the resident to speak to her neighbour about it. Internal emails in October 2022 show that the residents in the block had opted against bringing the gardening ‘in house’, although the date this decision was made is not evidenced. Therefore, the landlord would have been aware from the outset that the residents of the block held responsibility for the garden maintenance. It would have been reasonable for it to have informed the resident of such at the earliest opportunity. Instead, it raised the expectations of the resident that it was a service the landlord would consistently provide and caused her to expend time chasing a response.
While the landlord did trim the hedge on this occasion, they could have communicated more effectively and promptly with the resident about their obligation to maintain it. Additionally, it took them 5 months to even acknowledge that the resident had raised the issue. This lack of responsiveness is not in line with Dispute Resolution Principles and likely caused frustration for the resident.
Therefore, taking into account all the above, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the hedge to be maintained.
Considering all the evidence above, a compensation order has been made for £100 for the time taken in pursing this issue, in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.

Complaint handling

The resident made a formal complaint on 7 February 2022 which the landlord acknowledged, in line with its policy, on 11 February 2022. It advised it would discuss this with her on 18 February 2022. This was appropriate and would have reassured the resident it was committed to resolving her issue.
The resident contacted this Service on 10 March 2022 and advised she had not received a response from the landlord; 21 days after a response was due in line with its policy. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that residents should be at the heart of complaint handling. In failing to respond in a timely manner, the landlord showed a disregard to this principle.
This Service contacted the landlord on 22 March 2022 asking it to provide a response by 5 April, and again on 30 May 2022 asking it to respond by 8 June 2022. While the landlord did provide its response on 8 June 2022, it was unsatisfactory that it took 2 reminders from this Service to do so. The extensive delays in this case denied the resident a timely resolution and was unsatisfactory.
On 27 June 2022, the resident asked the landlord how to escalate her complaint to stage 2; the landlord did not respond. This request is clear evidence that the resident wished to pursue a complaint at stage 2, and the landlord’s failure to acknowledge this denied the resident to opportunity to receive a resolution in a timely manner. Its failure in this regard caused the resident to expend time contacting this Service to chase a response. This was not appropriate, and not in line with the Code, nor the landlord’s own complaints policy.
This Service required the landlord to provide a response at stage 2 to the resident by 14 October 2022. The landlord informed this Service on 14 October 2022 that it required an extension. There is no evidence to suggest that this was discussed or communicated with the resident in line with its policy. This would have caused frustration to the resident whose response was already significantly delayed.
The landlord’s stage 2 response advised that a different complaint policy was in place at the time the resident initially raised the matter. It said that due to a subsequent merger with another landlord, it would not consider anything that had been raised prior to its new policy coming into force in September 2021. This is wholly inappropriate. A landlord cannot dismiss responsibility for past failures just because a merger had occurred. This was not in the spirit of dispute resolution or rebuilding the landlord and resident relationship.
The Ombudsman had to intervene at all stages of this complaint to illicit a response to the resident, this is unacceptable. Overall, there were significant delays at every stage of the complaint handling in this case. The resident had to take significant time to receive a response from the landlord, including expending time speaking to this Service. Further to that, the landlord had to be prompted to act on several occasions by this Service, there were repeated failures in managing this complaint.
Therefore, taking into account all the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £100 for its complaint handling, however this does not accurately reflect the impact the landlord’s failures had on the resident. A compensation order has therefore been made for £500, made up of the following:
1. £100 for the delays at stage 1.
2. £100 for the failure to escalate to stage 2.
3. £100 for the delays at stage 2.
4. £200 for the time taken to pursue a response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that she could not access her communal garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports that her front hedge was overgrown.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation of £1418.60, made up of the following:
1. £818.60 for the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s report that she could not access her communal garden.
2. £100 for its handling of the resident’s report that her front hedge was overgrown.
3. £500 for its complaint handling.
The above amount replaces the landlords previous offer of £349.50 and should be paid less any amount already paid to the resident.
A senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for all the failings identified in this report.

Recommendations

The evidence shows the landlord gave a rent rebate to all the residents in the block affected by this issue. The landlord should consider how the findings in this case affect any other residents in this block.
The landlord should clarify with the residents of the block who is responsible for the hedge cutting.