Peabody Trust (202217946)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217946

Peabody Trust

7 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to his reports that his bedroom is too cold and his request for a rent reduction due to the bedroom being unusable.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a shared ownership property, described as a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat. He has resided there since 2012.
The previous landlord merged with another in 2023. The new landlord has responded to the resident’s complaint, although it was originally submitted to his old landlord, pre-merger.
The resident contacted to the Ombudsman in November 2022. He said he had complained to the landlord and received an acknowledgement. However, he had received no further response. Following the resident’s contact, we wrote to the landlord on 11 November 2022 and asked it to respond to him.
On 14 November 2022 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It understood the complaint to be about the resident’s bedroom being too cold and that, as a resolution to the complaint, he wanted a reduction in his rent across January to March 2022 and for the cause of the coldness to be identified. It went on to make the following comments findings:
1. It apologised for poor communication the resident had previously received. However, it said that as he was a shared ownership leaseholder, it would “not be responsible to carry out repairs inside (his) home”.
2. It would also not reduce the rent as it was “aware of the ownership of this property”.
The resident emailed the landlord to ask that his complaint be escalated on 17 November 2022. He repeated his concerns, namely that the landlord had not responded to his initial reports and that he considered that the landlord was responsible for repairs if “any part of the building is faulty”.
He emailed the landlord again on 12 December 2022 and later contacted the Ombudsman when the landlord did not reply. We contacted the landlord on 4 January 2023 and asked it to provide a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 9 January 2023.
On 14 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. To review the complaint, it advised it checked its records and spoke to relevant staff members. It acknowledged the resident had contacted this Service due to delays with escalating the complaint. It noted he remained unhappy with its stage 1 response and that he was still “experiencing issues with the bedroom being too cold”. It went on to make the following comments and findings:
1. The resident said he had first raised concerns about the bedroom being cold in November 2021. However, he had had no communication from the landlord until June 2022 when an operative inspected his patio doors. After this, he had again had no further contact from the landlord.
2. The landlord advised it had no records of any inspection taking place.
3. In a phone call during the complaint investigation, the landlord had reiterated that, as he was a leaseholder, there were “certain responsibilities” it was not responsible for”. However, it had agreed to arrange for a surveyor to attend and “inspect the door for any faults”.
4. A surveyor attended on 28 February 2023 and found the patio doors to be “completely air tight” and the door frames did “not show any defects”. They had not detected any draughts and noted the room “did not appear to be cold”. There was no evidence the door was “in any type of disrepair”.
5. It acknowledged the resident’s concern about the reported draughts. It had therefore reviewed the terms of his lease, which showed that maintenance of “all door and door frames” was his responsibility as a leaseholder. It advised him to engage his own surveyor, who could provide it with a copy of any survey report “should there be a reason for the room becoming draughty”. It said it would review any report and “act upon those findings” if there was any repair which was its responsibility.
6. Regarding its handling of the complaint, it acknowledged that its stage 1 response did not demonstrate a “full investigation had been undertaken”. It also apologised that its response was not “resolution based”.
7. It acknowledged it did not escalate the complaint when the resident made contact in November and December 2022, only progressing the complaint to stage 2 after this Service intervened in January 2023. It apologised for the “challenges” he had faced when contacting it and the fact its stage 2 response was also issued outside of its target timeframe.
8. It set out its learning from the complaint and offered the resident a total of £800 compensation for his time, trouble and inconvenience, lack of communication, poor record keeping and delayed complaint responses.
The resident contacted us on 28 September 2023 to refer his complaint for further investigation. He said he wanted the landlord to cancel interest charges on his rent account. As a resolution to the complaint, he said he also wanted the landlord to either fix the bedroom balcony door or allow him to do so and offset the cost of works against an outstanding balance on his rent account.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As above, when referring his complaint to us, the resident explained he remained unhappy with the outcome and the landlord’s response. He referred to a request made for the landlord to cancel some interest on his rent account. However, this did not form part of the original complaint, and we will therefore not consider this here. If he remains unhappy with the landlord’s response to his proposal, the resident should consider making a new complaint to allow it the opportunity to respond.
We note that the resident has advised that he first raised concerns about his bedroom being cold and affected by a draft in November 2021. The landlord has said it does not have any record of this. As we have not seen evidence of any reports being submitted prior to the time of the complaint, this investigation will consider how the landlord responded from November 2022 onwards.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that his bedroom is too cold and his request for a rent reduction due to the bedroom being unusable

The resident’s lease defines the Premises as including “the inside and outside of the windows” and “the doors, door frames, equipment, fitments and any glass relating to the doors of the Premises”. It says that the Premises do not include “the window frames”, “roof…and external walls of the Building”.
The landlord’s Responsive Repairs policy says that “leaseholders are normally responsible for all repairs within their home”. It outlines that it is usually responsible for repairs to communal areas or “repairs resulting from our action or inaction”. It clarifies it will “always follow the lease in deciding the responsibilities of leaseholders and the landlord (us)”.
The landlord has produced a “Repair Responsibilities: Shared Owners and Leaseholders” document. This outlines that “glazing and frames to window(s) or door(s)” are the leaseholder’s responsibility to maintain and repair unless their lease says otherwise.
After we contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf, it responded to the complaint promptly. It said that as he was a shared owner, under the terms of the lease, the landlord was not responsible for carrying out any repairs. It also declined to consider any rent reduction for this reason.
The landlord’s response failed to demonstrate that it had thoroughly investigated any of the concerns the resident raised. Aside from saying it was not responsible for any repairs, it did not offer any comment regarding an inspection the resident said had taken place earlier in 2022. The landlord did not demonstrate that it took the resident’s concerns seriously or that it had reviewed any actions or inspections that were, or were not, completed thus far. This was not appropriate and did not treat the resident fairly.
The resident experienced problems in getting his complaint escalated and the Ombudsman was prompted to intervene on his behalf for a second time. However, once the stage 2 investigation began, it was more comprehensive. It clarified it had no record of an inspection taking place in 2022. While this may indicate poor record keeping, it was appropriate that the landlord addressed this in its response, explained its position and proactively made the decision to arrange an inspection as part of its complaint investigation.
Arranging for a surveyor to attend the property in February 2023 and inspect the bedroom was a positive step. Internal correspondence shows its Customer Service Delivery Manager appropriately commented that the landlord should “establish if it is our responsibility (to carry out any repairs) as (the patio door) is an external feature of the property”. This showed the landlord was willing to review the case and the blanket position it had adopted in its stage 1 response. It indicated it took his complaint seriously and treated the resident fairly.
The landlord’s final response went on to note that the surveyor found the bedroom patio doors to be “completely airtight” and there was no sign of any disrepair. They also did not report noticing any draughts coming into the room.
We note the resident has raised concerns about the quality of the inspection and the methods the surveyor used to establish there were no draughts. However, the landlord was entitled to rely on the report submitted by its surveyor. As no fault had been identified with the patio doors, the landlord reasonably referred the resident back to the terms of the lease.
While it is acknowledged that the resident is unhappy with this outcome, the wording of the lease is clear in that “the doors, door frames…and any glass relating to the doors” form part of the property. As such, the resident is responsible for any associated repairs. This position is also clarified within the landlord’s Repair Responsibilities document. Although no disrepair had been identified, the landlord was entitled to rely on the terms of the lease.
It also acted reasonably when it advised the resident to engage his own surveyor if he remained concerned about the coldness of his bedroom and whether the room was useable. It was positive that it said it would consider the contents of any subsequent reports or findings made following any survey the resident arranged. It was also fair when it said it would consider acting if any repairs were identified for which it was considered responsible.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acted appropriately when it contacted the resident to discuss the complaint and set out the parameters of its investigation. It was also good practice that it asked for an extension when it became aware the response may not be issued within its target timeframe. However, it was unfortunate that it then missed this rearranged target.
It was reasonable that, in its stage 2 response, it awarded £100 compensation to reflect the fact there had been poor record keeping when the resident first reported his concerns about the cold bedroom. While he said there was a delay of around 6 months before the landlord attended the property to carry out an inspection in June 2022, as noted above we have not seen evidence the issue was reported prior to the resident’s complaint, nor regarding any inspection. In the absence of evidence that there was a delayed response, it was positive that the landlord decided to offer some form of redress regarding its record keeping.
It was also appropriate that the landlord’s stage 2 response recognised its reply at stage 1 had been poor. It acknowledged it had been issued just 3 days after our contact and that fact did not suggest a full investigation of the complaint had been carried out due to the quick turnaround. This was positive and showed the landlord had carefully considered how its complaint handling had been conducted up to that point. Its offer of £100 to reflect the fact its response had not been “resolution based” was also reasonable.
It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged it had not appropriately escalated the complaint when the resident asked it to. This again showed it had taken the time to review its actions at stage 1 and identified areas where it should have done better. It offers of £50 for the failure to escalate the complaint, £50 for the fact the stage 2 response was issued late and a further £100 to address its poor correspondence with him after it issued the stage 1 response were reasonable in the circumstances.
It also acted reasonably when it offered a further £400 to reflect the resident’s “time, trouble and inconvenience” overall. This was a positive attempt by the landlord to “put things right”, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
Overall, while we recognise the landlord’s final (stage 2) response did not provide the resident with the outcome he wanted, it was comprehensive, and it set out its positions clearly and reasonably. Based on the terms of the lease, it was entitled to determine that it did not have any repair responsibilities. It appropriately recognised a number of failings in its response to the resident’s original concerns and how it did, or did not, address these within its complaint response. The steps it took during the stage 2 complaint investigation – arranging an inspection, providing redress for identified failures and advising it would consider the findings of any surveys the resident arranged privately – were appropriate and treated the resident fairly.
As such, we have made a finding that the steps taken by the landlord, and the compensation it offered in its final complaint response, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to our investigation which resolved the complaint satisfactorily.