Peabody Trust (202201272)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201272

Peabody Trust

25 February 2025

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the security at their block.
2. Request for the ‘wholesale redesign’ of their block.
3. Request that the landlord clarify its role and responsibilities with regards to:
  1. Service Charges, including what these covered.
  2. The estate manager and caretakers.
4. Concerns about flooding in the basement in 2019 which remained for several months.
5. Concerns about the landlord’s initiative in 2021 to clear communal walkways.
6. Reports of issues with pests in their block and in the external areas.
7. Reports of the ‘substandard’ communal door to their block.
8. Reports of issues with the condition of their block including the standard of decoration and the communal cleaning.
This complaint is also about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
In their letter to the landlord on 7 February 2022, the resident:
1. Raised concerns about the security on their estate.
2. Asked that the landlord consider the wholesale redesign of their block, as proposed in the landlord’s ‘improve’ programme. This included renewing the tarmac, landscaping, reconfiguring the lighting, incorporating a new area to house the recycling and rubbish bins, parking and charging points for electric cars, and fibre broadband.
3. Asked that the landlord clarify its role and responsibilities with regards to:
  1. Service charges, including what these covered.
  2. The estate manager and caretakers.
This Service’s complaint handling code states that landlords should recognise the difference between a service request (pre-complaint) and a formal complaint and take appropriate steps to resolve the issue for residents as early as possible. A service request is a request from a resident to their landlord requiring action to be taken. A complaint should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to their service request.
In this case, the landlord appropriately recognised the above matters as service requests and not complaints. This is because the issues raised by the resident were requests for action to be taken or considered by the landlord and not its response to those service requests. As such it was reasonable for the landlord to respond to these as service requests and to send these to the relevant teams to respond to in the first instance. Were the resident to have been dissatisfied with the relevant teams responses, this could have formed part of a subsequent formal complaint.
As the resident’s concerns about the security on their estate, their request for the landlord to consider the wholesale redesign of their block and their request for clarification about service charges and certain roles, were service requests and not formal complaints, these elements are outside of the scope of this investigation under 42(a) of the Scheme. As such these will not be considered any further in this report.
Nevertheless, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to review how it explained its position with regards to these service requests to the resident. This is because this was not always particularly clear, and at times somewhat confusing, which would have been understandably frustrating for the resident.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising.
In their complaint to the landlord on 7 February 2022, the resident referred to the landlord’s initiative in 2021 to clear communal walkways, the flooding of the basement in 2019 and a surveyor visiting the property in 2020 to ascertain the source of the flood and assess the resulting damage. The resident said they were yet to receive any explanation of how this leak came about, or what works were carried out to restore the basement to its former state beyond pumping out the flood water. The resident proposed that the landlord review the report from the 2020 surveyor visit and, if necessary, arrange another visit.
Whilst it is evident that the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the basement flooding in 2019 and its initiative to clear communal walkways in 2021, as a formal complaint about its response to these matters was not raised with the landlord until some 3 to 4 years later, these matters are outside of the scope of this investigation under 42(c) of the Scheme, and as such will not be considered any further in this report.
The resident also raised concerns about the security on their estate referring to ‘numerous representations’ to the landlord ‘over the years’ about the estate entrances remaining open and easily accessible to non-residents. The resident referred to drug users and dealers, homeless and rough sleepers, users of the local pub urinating in alleyways. Whilst the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, as no evidence has been seen by this Service of these matters being raised in the 12 months leading up to the resident’s complaint of 7 February 2022, this too is outside of the scope of this investigation under paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has bought this complaint to the Ombudsman as a group complaint on behalf of himself and 9 other residents in his block.
Under the Scheme, the Housing Ombudsman Service deals with complaints from individual tenants and leaseholders. However, this Service also receives enquiries and complaints from groups of complainants (made up of residents from more than one property).
In deciding whether this complaint can be considered by this Service as a group complaint, we have to establish:
1. If the complaint is about the same issue for everyone and the Ombudsman can consider the same facts and evidence in order to address the concerns of all the individuals involved.
2. How has the landlord treated the matter – has it dealt with it as a group complaint or has it been dealing with individual complainants throughout its own complaints procedure.
3. Whether we are satisfied that the lead complainant has the agreement of the other residents involved to represent them and liaise with the Ombudsman on their behalf.
Having considered the evidence, this Service is satisfied that the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to reports of issues with pests in their block and in the external areas, the issues with the communal door, and the condition of their block including the standard decoration and communal cleaning all fall within our jurisdiction and meet the above requirements. As such these matters have been assessed in this report.
In their complaint letter to the landlord, the resident raised concerns about residents’ overall experiences of the landlord’s repairs system. These were described as being ‘increasingly convoluted’ and ‘inefficient’ with residents ‘having to bounce from sub-contractor to sub-contractor.’ Whilst the resident’s concerns have been noted, as this was a generalised concern and as the circumstances for each resident would differ, this is not something that can be considered as part of a group complaint.

Summary of Events

On 7 February 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord. In their correspondence the resident complained about:
1. Pests in their block and in the external areas, about which they said they had previously raised issues with the landlord.
2. Issues with the communal door having been raised on several occasions with no meaningful action being taken. The resident referred to problems including a faulty keyhole/barrel, a faulty door mechanism which failed to close the door once opened and a large gap between the door frame and the lock which made it easy for the lock mechanism to be accessed.
3. The condition of their block including the standard of the decoration and the communal cleaning. The resident said that:
  1. In the last 20 years they had not seen any significant programme of redecoration. Walls were damaged in many places and had ‘large bits of plaster missing,’ there was ‘extensive scuffing everywhere’ on the walls, skirting and ceilings, and there was a ‘musty smell’ throughout.
  2. Complaints had been made about the standard of cleaning in the block, with issues being reported including:

(1) Dirty water from cleaning other blocks being used to clean their block.

(2) Cobwebs throughout the block.

(3) The skirting throughout the block being ‘very dirty.’

(4) The glass in the communal doors and windows being dirty.

The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 October 2022. The landlord:
1. Referred to having received no reports regarding pests for the resident’s individual property. It made no reference to reports related to pests in the communal areas.
2. Said, with regards to the communal entrance door, that its specialist electrical works contractor had attended on 2 occasions in 2022:
  1. On 1 March 2022, the contractors found the mains supply had tripped. The fault was traced to the power unit, which was replaced and the system was tested and left working as expected.
  2. On 18 May 2022, the contractors found that the latch had been damaged. The latch was replaced, the systems tested and left working.
3. Noted that it had issued a response to the concerns raised about the condition of the resident’s block on 5 October 2022, following an estate walk around with the resident on 17 May 2022. With regards to the resident’s ‘overarching dissatisfaction’ with the services, it hoped that some of the action it had taken, such as taking the time to carry out an estate inspection with the resident, had reassured them that it took their concerns seriously.
The landlord issued its final response on 20 December 2022 in which it said:
1. That it had raised a pest control job for the block in September 2022, but this was raised by and for an individual flat, for which the treatment was underway. The landlord said that it was unable to find another pest control repair raised in the last few weeks or months, to the block or estate. The landlord asked the resident that, if they had another repair reference to let it know so that this could be investigated.
2. With regards to the communal entrance door, the landlord explained that it would only seek to replace it once it was ‘completely beyond repair.’ It went on to explain that there could be a ‘very high frequency’ of usage on a block entrance door, depending on the number of flats in the block using it. The landlord said that this meant that they were often in need of repair due to wear and tear and that some components needed replacing rather than the whole door and infrastructure. However, at such time that reports were received that the door was beyond repair and needed to be replaced, it would do so.
3. In response to the resident’s concerns that they had no record of the response of 5 October 2022 and that it had not acknowledged that this was not sent until 5 months after the walk around in May 2022, the landlord said that it would not be able to review that complaint as it was ‘from a different service area’.
4. That it had recently overhauled its complaints process and in the last few weeks published a new policy and a restructure of its complaints teams had been completed. There were several staff starting in its stage 1 and 2 teams which it expected would improve communication and response times.
5. Training had been carried out recently with all its stage 1 handlers and staff who logged complaints because a new version of the complaints policy went live in the last few weeks. The landlord noted that that version did not apply to this case as it only went live after the resident’s complaint was originally logged.
6. It offered £50 for the delays and shortcomings in its complaint handling for each of the group complainants and an additional £120 for the resident, in their role as lead complainant.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes.’
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.

Response to reports of issues with pests in their block and in the external areas.

The landlord’s pest control policy states it will deal with pest infestations that are found in the communal parts of its properties, such as lobbies, hallways, staircases, landings of blocks of flats and bin stores, and that it will take reasonably prompt action to manage pest infestations for which it is responsible.
In the 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint on 7 February 2022, there were reports made by individual residents of pests within their property. However, as this is a group complaint this assessment is only of the landlord’s response to reports of repairs in the communal areas. These reports included:
1. On 23 February 2021, the caretaker reporting rats around the communal bins and that they were ‘coming up through the drains’.
2. On 5 May 2021, mice being seen in the communal entrance.
3. On 22 October 2021, that mice/rats had been seen in the communal area and that block treatment was required.
4. On 6 November 2021, that rats had been seen in all communal areas of the estate. The repair record for this job notes that the landlord was ‘already attending the communal areas here under a different job number’.
5. On 16 March 2022, which referred to treating the block for rats, that this was an ongoing issue and that advice was being sought with regards to a long-term solution.
With the exception of the report made on 6 November 2021, the landlord raised a repair following each of the above reports. However, the repair records provided to this Service include no information about whether any of the above jobs were attended and, if they were, what action was taken as a result. This was despite these being requested in our evidence request letter to the landlord.
Good record keeping is one of the fundamental aspects of housing management, and without it a landlord is often unable to support any claims it has made about the actions it has taken or provide evidence that it is meeting its obligations fairly and consistently.
Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations.
The complaints process provided the landlord with the opportunity to review its handling of the reports it had received regarding pests in the communal area and to assess whether it had acted in a fair and reasonable way. However, it failed to do so.
This is because, despite there having been at least 5 reports of either rats or mice in the communal area in the 12 months leading up to the complaint, the landlord made no reference to this issue in its stage 1 response. To compound this failure, it then went on to say in its stage 2 response that it had no record of reports related to the communal area, which was evidently not the case.
It is acknowledged that between the stage 1 response and the stage 2 response of 20 December 2022 there is no evidence of any further reports of rats in the communal areas.
However, given that the complaint had been made in February 2022, the landlord would have been expected to have carried out a meaningful investigation into reports made in the 6 to 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. This is because these were the issues that had given rise to the complaint in the first place.
Had it done so, the landlord would have seen that there had been multiple reports, including a report some 7 months earlier, on 16 March 2022, which referred to the need to seek a ‘long-term solution’. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to take action to resolve what had been described in its own records as being an ‘on-going’ issue.
Following its stage 2 response there were further reports of rat or mice sightings in the block. These were on 25 March 2023, 9 June 2023, and 28 June 2023. By the time of the 28 June 2023 report, it was noted that there were ‘rats across the entire estate’ and that ‘all blocks were affected’. This included the resident’s block.
It was then not until 8 December 2023, almost 2 years after the resident’s complaint of 7 February 2022, that the landlord’s repair records noted that a monthly baiting contract had been put in place.
Given the lack of accurate and comprehensive records, the evident lack of a meaningful investigation into the resident’s concerns and the unfairness to them as a result, a finding of maladministration has been made in respect of this element of the complaint.
To put this right the landlord has been ordered to apologise and pay each of the group complainants £100 compensation. It has also been ordered to review its record keeping in relation to this element of the resident’s complaint, and to consider what actions it needs to take to ensure that going forward it maintains clear and comprehensive records of actions taken in response to reports of pests.

Concerns about the ‘substandard’ communal door to their block.

Once a landlord is informed of some damage or deterioration in a property, it is ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable inquiry to determine the cause and complete a repair. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
The landlord’s repairs policy provides timescales for its response to different types of repairs. In this case, given the nature of the reported repairs, it was reasonable for the landlord to respond in accordance with its timescale for next available repair. This would mean a response within 28 calendar days (average target of 10 working days). In the majority of cases seen by this Service an operative attended the following day. However, there is a number of repair records entries where there is no record of what action, if any, was taken.
Prior to the complaint being made about the standard of the communal door to the resident’s block the landlord repair records note that:
1. On 21 October 2021, a report was made that the communal door was not closing at the bottom. The repair records seen by this Service provide no record of what action, if any, was taken at that time. This issue was reported again on 8 November 2021, again the repair records seen by this Service provide no record of what action, if any, was taken at that time.
2. On 1 December 2021, a report was made that the communal door guard battery needed replacing in order to stop beeping. The landlord’s records note that this was attended the following day. The operative that attended noted that the door was not closing and that the closer arm was loose. This was refixed and adjusted and the door was left closing.
Following the resident’s complaint of 7 February 2022, a report was made on 22 April 2022 that the key to the main door was ‘spinning in the lock barrel’, the door closer was not working and there was a large gap around the door frame.
In correspondence with the resident, on 25 April 2022, the landlord said that it had arranged for its contractor to carry out works to the lock, door frame and door closer mechanism. It went on to say that when the property was surveyed for cyclical works, if the surveyor recommended that the door be replaced, this would be considered at that time.
This visit was not referred to by the landlord in its stage 1 response of 24 October 2022. However, it did refer to 2 other occasions when operatives were called out to attend to the communal door. It is noted that these reports have not been seen by this Service.
Between the landlord’s stage 1 response of 24 October 2022 and its final response of 20 December 2022, the landlord’s records note that repairs were required to the communal door on 6 occasions. These were on 15, 17, 18, 21 and 23 November 2022 and 15 December 2022. These involved the intercom being broken and the door not closing. The reports noted that this left the property ‘insecure’ with ‘strange individuals’ entering and loitering or sleeping in the communal areas. The door ‘bleeping’ and the door guards or batteries needing replacing, the latch and release having been tampered with and the closer leaking oil were also reported. On each occasion an operative attended and noted that the door had been left working ‘ok.’
In its stage 2 of 20 December 2022, the landlord said that it would only seek to replace the door if it was beyond economic repair. It went on to explain that just because a repair is reported does not mean that something needs to be replaced and cannot be repaired. It also explained that there can be a very high frequency of usage on a block entrance door or gate, depending on the number of flats in the block using it, which can mean that they are often in need of repair due to wear and tear and that some components need replacing rather than the whole door and infrastructure.
Whilst this would, in general, be considered a reasonable response, what the landlord failed to address was that in the 5 days prior to its stage 2, it had received a report from the operative that attended on 15 December 2022 which said that they had adjusted the latch and closer but recommended a new door.
Given that was the case the landlord should have advised the resident of the report made by the operative and explained what steps it intended to take as a result. However, it failed to do so and instead said that at that time it was not aware that the door was beyond economic repair, and that its repair records did not indicate that it was. This was evidently not the case, given the recommendation made by its operative on 15 December 2022.
Following the landlord’s final response, further repairs were reported regarding the communal door on 25 January 2023 and 10 February 2023. These repairs related to the lock being damaged and the door not closing properly.
However, despite the operatives recommendation of 15 December 2022 and these subsequent repairs, it was not until 13 February 2023 that the landlord repair records note that a new door was recommended. The same record noted that a survey of the door, and quote to replace, was to be carried out on 17 February 2023.
On 24 February 2023, the landlord noted that an order had been raised to replace the communal door. However, in the meantime it was suggested that a temporary fix be provided to allow the door to close to stop unauthorised access.
It is unclear whether this ‘temporary fix’ took place. However, this was a reasonable and practical step for the landlord to take, given that it would have been aware that, in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs policy, the replacement of the door might take some 60 calendar days to complete.
The repairs policy explains that this is because these types of works fall outside the timeframe of a responsive repair, are complex in nature and therefore require a specialist contractor.
Given that the order to replace the communal door had been raised on 24 February 2023, the landlord would be expected to have completed the works by the end of April 2023.
However, by 1 June 2023, the communal door had still not been replaced and a further repair was raised for an operative to attend as the door was stuck open. The operative attended the same day and noted that they had replaced the door guard batteries which were dead.
There were then further delays in the door being replaced. The landlord’s repair records noting that the door was not installed until 18 October 2023.
Overall, it took the landlord over 10 months from the date the new door was recommended, and almost 8 months from the point at which the order was raised, to carry out the required works. This was significantly over the 60 calendar days set out in its repairs policy.
Given the above failings, and in fairness to the resident, a finding of maladministration made been made. To put this right the landlord has been ordered to apologise and pay each of the group complainants a further £100 compensation.

Concerns about the condition of their block including the standard of decoration

and communal cleaning.

The landlord’s Estate Management Policy states that:
1. Caretakers or contracted services attend all sites at least once a week or the locally agreed frequency.
2. It will regularly inspect communal areas at advertised times and that residents are invited to take part in these inspections. It goes on to say that it will use these inspections to monitor the quality of its estate management services using ‘consistent estate standards.’
3. It will regularly gather, monitor, and evaluate performance data on the effectiveness of its estate management service in order to make sure it continues to provide a high-level service and identify any areas for improvement.
Our evidence request to the landlord included a request for the following:
1. Any records concerning the landlord’s investigation into the reports made by the resident.
2. Communal maintenance and cleaning logs for the property.
3. Copies of any survey or inspection reports, or feedback from other employees or contractors.
4. Copies of any correspondence or notices sent to the resident concerning the landlord’s findings.
However, despite this the only records we received in relation to our request for these specific pieces of evidence was an undated caretakers attendance record and a block inspection report which postdated the landlord’s stage 2 response by almost 4 months.
The repair records provided by the landlord note that following the ‘estate walkabout’ of 17 May 2022, referred to in the landlord’s stage 1 response, a job was raised to carry out plastering and decorative works to the ‘top floor, left hand stairwell’. This record notes that the works were to be carried out ‘asap.’ However, the repair records include no information about if and when this was completed.
Again, the lack of evidence provided by the landlord has meant that the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord referred to the resident being sent correspondence on 5 October 2022 following their ‘estate walkabout’ with the landlord on 17 May 2022. Whilst it is not disputed that this ‘estate walkabout’ took place, in their escalation request the resident said that they did not have any record of the response the landlord said it had sent on 5 October 2022.
Having been advised that that was the case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have both provided a copy of that response and to have explained what happened following that visit, including the raising of the order to carry out plastering and decorative works to the ‘top floor, left hand stairwell’.
Whilst it did offer to forward the correspondence of 5 October 2022 in its stage 2 response, it failed to provide the resident with any other information. Instead, it stated that it ‘would not be able to review that complaint as it is from a different service area’.
This response was not in compliance with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, which was in place at that time, which stated that:
1. Landlords must have a person or team assigned to take responsibility for complaint handling to ensure complaints receive the necessary attention.
2. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
To have received such a response after having raised their initial complaint some 8 months earlier and having attended the walkabout with the landlord on 17 May 2022, 5 months earlier, would understandably have caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident. It would also have been understandably frustrating to not have had their concerns responded to.
It has been noted that in an internal email of 6 March 2024, the landlord confirmed that it had carried out another ‘walkabout’, which included its Head of Estate Service. In that email the landlord confirmed that it had ‘picked up’residents’ cleaning concerns, had removed the caretakers and replaced them with another caretaker known to the residents.
Whilst this was a welcome development, that this did not take place until over 2 years after the resident’s complaint represents maladministration on its part. This is because the landlord failed to provide any meaningful evidence of any inspections undertaken either prior to or during the complaints process, nor of its correspondence following its estate walkabout with the resident on 17 May 2022.
To put this right the landlord has been ordered to apologise and pay each of the group complainants a further £100 compensation. It has also been ordered to include its record keeping with regards to the cleaning and the standard of decoration in the communal areas in the review previously ordered with regards to its response to the resident’s reports of pests.
A further order has not been made in respect of the landlord reviewing the position taken in its stage 2 response, that it would not be able to review the complaint as it was from a different service area. This is because since that time the landlord has completed a self-assessment against this Service’s complaint handling code and has evidently taken steps to ensure that a similar response is not issued going forward. In that self-assessment the landlord confirmed that:
1. Part 4 of its Complaints Policy makes it clear that residents can raise a complaint via any means with any member of staff.
2. It had done a lot of work internally to raise awareness (as well as the profile) of the centralised, specialist complaints handling team since the merger between (it and another social housing provider) was completed.

Handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. This states that new complaints will be logged within 5 working days and a stage 1 response provided within 10 working days. At stage 2 its response will be provided within 20 working days. At both stages the policy allows for an extension if the resident is notified and agrees.
In this case the resident logged their complaint on 7 February 2022. As such the landlord would, in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy, be expected to log the complaint by 14 February 2022 and to provide its response by 28 February 2022.
It did not do so and so on 13 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that it had been 8 weeks since they had submitted their complaint and they had received no formal response.
The resident noted that they had received an email on 16 March 2022 to say that they would receive the landlord’s response within 10 working days, but despite ‘attempts to maintain dialogue’ they had still received no response. The resident said that, because of this, they had emailed again on 29 March 2022 asking that the complaint be escalated to stage 2 but again received no response.
The landlord responded the same day, 13 April 2022, apologised for the delay, referring to the complaint having been received on 9 March 2022, and said that whilst it aimed to respond within 10 working days, this was not always possible.
Despite the apology provided by the landlord, by 25 April 2022, the resident had still not received its response and so had to email the landlord again to chase this.
Having again received no response from the landlord, the resident sought the assistance of this Service on 14 July 2022. Following the resident’s contact, we wrote to the landlord on 14 July 2022 asking that it respond to the resident’s complaint of 7 February 2022.
Despite this the landlord failed to provide its response until 24 October 2022, some 8 months after the complaint was made on 7 February 2022 and some 3 months after having been contacted by this Service.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 15 November 2022. In accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy, the landlord would be expected to provide its response by 13 December 2022.
There was as short delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 response, this not being issued until 20 December 2022. However, this short delay would not in itself be considered a significant failure.
In its stage 2 response the landlord offered £50 to each of the group complainants for the delays and shortcomings in its complaint handling, and an additional £120 for the resident, in their role as lead complainant. This bought the total offered to the resident, in their role as lead complainant to £170.
However, this falls short of the level of compensation this Service would expect a resident to be offered where there has been such a significant failure by the landlord. Given that is the case a finding of maladministration has been made.
To put this right, the landlord is ordered to pay each of the group complainants an additional £50, bringing the total payable to each to £100. The landlord is also to pay the resident, in their role as lead complainant, an additional £50 bringing the total payable to them for the landlord’s complaint handling failures to £220.
In addition to putting things right, this Service expects landlords to evidence that they have learned from complaints. In this case the landlord did so, advising in its stage 2 response that it had recently overhauled its complaints process, published a new policy, restructured its complaints teams, and had provided training on the changes.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of issues with pests in their block and in the external areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the ‘substandard’ communal door to their block.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of their block including the standard of decoration and the communal cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

That within 28 days of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident, in their role as lead complainant, for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident, in their role as lead complainant, a total of £520. This is made up of:
  1. £100 for the failures identified with regards to its response to their reports of issues with pests in their block and in the external areas.
  2. £100 for the failures identified with regards to its response to their concerns about the ‘substandard’ communal door to their block.
  3. £100 for the failures identified with regards to its response to the resident’s reports of issues with the condition of their block including the standard of decoration and communal cleaning.
  4. £220 for its complaint handling failures, this being inclusive of the £170 already offered and if this has not already been paid.
3. Pay each of the other 9 residents that are party to this group complaint £400 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. £100 for the failures identified with regards to its response to their reports of issues with pests in their block and in the external areas.
  2. £100 for the failures identified with regards to its response to their concerns about the ‘substandard’ communal door to their block.
  3. £100 for the failures identified with regards to its response to the resident’s reports of issues with the condition of their block including the standard of decoration and communal cleaning.
  4. £100 for its complaint handling failures, this being inclusive of the £50 already offered and if this has not already been paid.
4. To review its record keeping in relation to the resident’s reports of issues with pests, and the standard of decoration and communal cleaning, within their block. As part of its review the landlord is to consider what actions it needs to take to ensure that going forward it maintains clear and comprehensive records of actions taken in response to reports of these issues.
5. The landlord is to confirm to this service that it has complied with each of the above orders.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord reviews how it explained why it would not be responding to certain issues raised by the resident as formal complaints but rather would send these to the relevant teams to respond to in the first instance. These issues included the security at their block/estate, the wholesale redesign of the resident’s block and the resident’s request for information about service charges, the estate manager, and caretakers. The purpose of this review is to ensure that going forward the landlord’s responses provide residents with a clear understanding of what it is doing and why.