Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Peabody Trust (202213232)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213232

Peabody Trust

18 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports about the upkeep of the communal grounds and facilities.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom second floor flat in a 4-storey block. The landlord became the freeholder of the building following a merger in April 2023.
  2. The resident raised concerns to the landlord in 2021 about the bike and bin stores, a broken drain, damaged benches, car park, overgrown trees and gardens. She made a complaint to the landlord on 9 November 2022 that there had been no resolution to her concerns. The landlord responded on 12 November 2022 and said it would not raise a complaint as the matters were over 6 months old.
  3. Following our intervention, the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 7 February 2023. It apologised for its delayed response and offered £50 compensation. It said it was working with its surveyor and planned to replace the bike and bin stores. It would visit to map the car park and get quotations for line marking. It had completed all garden maintenance work for the quarter, but its tree contractor would return in April 2023.
  4. The resident asked the landlord how to escalate her complaint on 2 occasions in May, and again on 1 June 2023. It acknowledged her request following our intervention on 6 July 2023. It said it would review her concerns and provide a response within 20 working days.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 3 August 2023. Its estates team had visited the resident and discussed her concerns about the upkeep of the trees and gardens. It said it would take some time to improve these due to a change in management. This was its interim response as it was waiting to hear from its neighbourhood team about the other matters. It acknowledged that its stage 1 response had not provided timescales and that the work was incomplete. It increased its compensation offer to £500. This comprised:
    1. £250 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
    2. £250 for its complaint handling failures.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. In October 2023, she said that while there had been a small improvement with the gardening, the other issues were no further forward since its stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord provided limited information as evidence to us. The absence of evidence has hindered our investigation and ability to accurately assess its actions. Neither party has confirmed whether the work was undertaken. This investigation, has therefore, relied on the evidence provided to determine this case.

Reports about the upkeep of communal grounds

  1. The landlord’s estate management policy says that it is responsible for shared areas which include gardens, parking and bin areas, and cycle stores. It will carry out regular visual estate inspections to assess condition and identify where it can improve standards.
  2. The landlord’s tree policy says that it will maintain and survey its tree stock on estates on a cyclical basis to ensure it meets its duty of care, and its tree stock is maintained in good health and vitality.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. It will complete non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days and programmed repairs within 60 calendar days.
  4. The evidence provided by both parties shows that the resident raised her concerns to the landlord in August 2021 (as set out above). The landlord asked for time to resolve the issues with the gardens as it had a new contract team. It had emailed its contractor to quote for the re-painting of the parking bay lines. It was meeting the contractor on 16 August 2021 to arrange the removal of the benches and discuss how to tackle the bike stores.
  5. In the resident’s complaint in November 2022, she said that there had been no resolution of the issues. Meetings had happened to no avail. She had not received a response to her emails in March and August 2022. She said she would withhold her service charge payments until it resolved the issues.
  6. The landlord’s records of 6 February 2023 referred to asking its surveyor which companies to use to have the bin store replaced with a keycode system. It would remove any bike without a label and replace the bike store, and progress matters that month.
  7. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it would visit that week to assess the car park, seek quotations, and get the work done. It had plans to replace the bin store and was working with its surveyor to get quotes. It would replace the bike store after writing to residents and removing any unclaimed bikes. It had completed all garden maintenance work, but its tree contractor would return to carry out scheduled maintenance. It had reminded staff about the importance of maintaining good communication and providing accurate and timely information.
  8. The landlord’s response did not address all of the resident’s concerns. It did not say what actions it would take in relation to the drains and benches. It also failed to give any reasonable timescales for when it would complete the work or demonstrate that it had investigated its records in relation to previous communication with her. This would have shown that the matters she raised had been ongoing for some time. There was no evidence to show that it had been doing regular estate inspections as set out in its estate management policy. Had it done so, it may have identified the required improvements.
  9. On 26 April 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord expressing her disappointment that no work had been done. She asked for an update and provided photographs of the trees and unsafe garden furniture. She also raised concerns about communal window cleaning, asking why it only cleaned those on the ground floor and why it had not fixed windows boarded for more than a year.
  10. The resident chased the landlord for updates on 3 and 17 May 2023. She also reported that a bench had collapsed when a child sat on it, and this could have caused a serious accident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have raised an emergency works order to remove the unsafe benches in line with its repairs policy timescale. But there is no evidence to show that it responded to her concerns.
  11. The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 July 2023. She was told that her complaint was being referred to its neighbourhood customer specialist who would contact her. But she received no contact, and all matters remained outstanding. She had not received responses to her emails from 17 May and 1 June 2023 or responses to her complaint about the windows.
  12. The landlord’s records of 2 August 2023 said that it had visited following the resident’s initial complaint. The site was being sufficiently maintained and the majority of work had been carried out. It had spoken with the gardeners who attended 2 weeks prior to address the issues. They attended that day to carry out more work. It had taken the service in-house and had attended 4 times. it would continue to make progress but would take some time to bed in a new service. Its previous contractors had not sufficiently maintained the area.
  13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for its poor service. It said its estate team had visited to discuss her concerns about the gardens and trees. Following their visit, it discussed the future vision for the upkeep of the gardens which they would manage. She was advised the process would take some time due to a change of management. It confirmed she was happy with the outcome of the visit. Its estate team would remain her point of contact for the grounds maintenance.
  14. The landlord said it was waiting for a response from its neighbourhood team about the remaining issues, but it would remain in regular contact with her. It would provide an update within the next 2 weeks. It acknowledged that its stage 1 response lacked detail about timescales, and it had failed to complete the work. It offered £250 compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  15. The landlord’s response addressed the resident’s concerns about the gardens, which she told us had slightly improved. It also said it would maintain regular contact and provide a further update within 2 weeks. There is no evidence provided following the landlord’s final response by either party. However, it appropriately apologised for its poor level of service, communication, and offered £250 compensation which was in line with our remedies guidance. We find that its apology and offer of compensation adequately addressed its handling of the resident’s reports and make a finding of reasonable redress.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s website currently states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code.
  2. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord’s complaints process had a shorter timescale at stage 2. Where complaints progressed to this stage, a panel hearing was held, and a final response would be sent within 10 working days of the meeting.
  3. The landlord initially refused to raise the resident’s complaint in November 2022 as the matters were over 6 months old. This was not appropriate as her concerns were ongoing and she had not received a resolution. This resulted in her contacting us for assistance.
  4. We contacted the landlord on 16 December 2022 and asked it to provide a stage 1 response by 11 January 2023. We wrote again on 25 January 2023 as the resident had received no response. It was asked to respond no later than 1 February 2023. It responded on 7 February 2023. It apologised for its late reply and offered £50 compensation. Its compensation offer was not proportionate to the difficulty the resident had in making her complaint, its delay, or her time and trouble in having to come to us to intervene.
  5. The resident asked the landlord how to escalate her complaint on 3 and 17 May, and 1 June 2023 but received no response. Following our further intervention on 29 June 2023, we asked it to send its stage 2 response by 3 August 2023, which it did. It apologised for its complaint handling failures and increased its compensation offer to £250. It also set out its learning from the complaint and had increased its staffing levels and provided further training.
  6. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  7. The landlord’s apology and increased compensation offer were reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance. It also demonstrated learning from the complaint. We conclude that its apology and increased compensation offer adequately remedied its complaint handling failures and make a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports about the upkeep of the communal grounds and facilities.
    2. Associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. Our finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that the landlord pays the resident £500 offered in its stage 2 response, if not already paid.