From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Peabody Trust (202220453)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220453

Peabody Trust

28 July 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:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. Handling of a contractor’s conduct at an appointment on 28 June 2023.
    3. Administration of annual gas safety checks.
    4. Handling of repairs to restore the resident’s heating and hot water.
    5. Handling of repairs caused by leaks from the flat above.
    6. Handling of repairs to unblock the resident’s sink.
    7. Handling of repairs to a communal window.
    8. Handling of the resident’s associated complaints.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and she lives in a first floor flat.
  2. In September and November 2022, the resident complained about the annual gas safety check. She said the contractor had sent reminder letters despite her having made an appointment. She complained that the landlord’s approach in saying it may use forced entry to carry out checks was not lawful.
  3. On 14 November 2022, the resident reported having no heating or hot water. She complained on 3 December 2022 that it had not been repaired. The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 16 December 2022. In it, it said its contractor had sent 2 different operatives but had not been able to complete the repair. It explained it was arranging a joint visit with the contractor.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint and the landlord gave its final response on 16 March 2023. It said it was sorry for how she felt about its contractor’s conduct and for its delays in responding to her complaint. It offered £523 compensation for the delay in restoring her heating and hot water, and in dealing with the complaint.
  5. In January 2023, the resident reported a leak from the flat above into her bathroom. On 17 January 2023, she complained the operative attending had not had valid identification (ID).
  6. She reported the leak again around 22 February 2023 and the landlord resolved it around 15 March 2023. She reported a leak into her kitchen around 16 March 2023 which the landlord resolved on 20 March 2023.
  7. On 13 May 2023, the resident reported that her sink was blocked. On 15 May 2023 she complained the operatives did not have valid ID. She also complained about the delay in unblocking the sink.
  8. On 18 May 2023, the resident reported a faulty handle on a communal window. The landlord raised an order for its repair.
  9. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 22 May 2023 about the ID issues she complained about on 15 May 2023. It confirmed it had raised them with the contractor. It apologised for the issues and offered £75 compensation. The resident was not satisfied with the outcome and told the landlord it had not replied to other complaints she had made.
  10. On 1 June 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman saying the landlord had not responded to her complaints about staff and contractor conduct, leaks from the flat above her, repairs and ASB. We asked the landlord to respond to her complaints.
  11. On 6 June 2023, the resident complained about the contractor’s operatives not carrying valid ID. The landlord gave a stage 1 response on 8 June 2023 saying she had raised the issue in previous complaints and it had given a stage 1 response on 22 May 2023. It said it would combine the unresolved issues in one complaint.
  12. The landlord logged a separate complaint about its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. It gave a stage 1 response on 22 June 2023 which said it was satisfied it had taken appropriate action. It asked the resident to report any further incidents.
  13. The landlord gave its final response to the other matters complained about on 29 June 2023 which said:
    1. It had addressed her concerns about staff and contractor conduct in its previous responses.
    2. It was due to repair her ceilings after the leaks from above on 28 June 2023.
    3. It was sorry it had not told her it would not accept a complaint she had made on 21 March 2023. It considered it to be a service request asking for a repair.
    4. It was sorry its contractor had not told her when it was on site to repair the communal window. While she had asked for this it had not been necessary.
    5. It was sorry for its failings and offered £490 compensation.
  14. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate. She said the landlord had not given responses to all the issues she had complained about, including its approach to annual gas checks. She wanted to hold the landlord to account. She wanted it to apologise and pay her compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  15. On 25 August 2023 the landlord spoke with the resident and realised it had not dealt with her complaints about the annual gas safety checks. It logged a complaint and gave its stage 1 response on 11 September 2023 which explained its obligations and procedures.
  16. The resident replied on 12 September 2023 saying the response had not addressed what she had complained about. The landlord escalated the complaint but later closed it without giving a stage 2 response.
  17. On 15 September 2023, the resident complained about the conduct of an operative that attended her flat on 28 June 2023 to do repairs following the leaks from the flat above. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 28 September 2023 apologising for the issues and confirming the remaining repairs needed.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction and is set out in the Scheme.
  2. The following complaints will not be investigated by the Ombudsman:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the ASB, as specified above at paragraph 1(a) above.
    2. The landlord’s handling of a contractor’s conduct at an appointment on 28 June 2023 as specified at paragraph 1(b) above.
  3. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme says:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. 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.”

The landlord’s handling of ASB

  1. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint with the landlord before she brought this complaint to our attention. Therefore, we cannot investigate it in accordance with paragraphs 42.a.

The landlord’s handling of a contractor’s conduct

  1. This complaint is outside our jurisdiction because the complaint did not complete the landlord’s complaint process and there is no evidence of complaint-handling failure by the landlord. Specifically, there is no evidence the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint after it gave its stage 1 response.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident complained about the landlord’s administration of annual gas checks in 2017 and about boiler repairs in 2018. In a letter dated 26 February 2019, the resident’s MP told her she could bring her complaints to the Ombudsman if she felt the landlord was not dealing with them as it should. As events become historic, it becomes more difficult for the Ombudsman to investigate and arrive at meaningful conclusions. The Ombudsman expects complaints to be made promptly and referred to us quickly. Given the passage of time, we have decided that we will not investigate the issues dating back to 2017, 2018 and 2019 based on the evidence of service failure presented. Given the resident raised complaints about the gas safety checks in 2021, we can consider its handling of matters from that point.
  2. Part of the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s administration of gas safety checks is that the landlord’s policy of using forced entry to gain access was unlawful. We have assessed whether its actions in 2022 and 2023 were fair and reasonable, and in line with its obligations and policies.

Administration of annual gas safety checks

  1. Under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, landlords are legally obliged to do a gas safety check each year. A registered engineer must do the annual check. After the check, a safety certificate is given which is valid for a year. A valid safety certificate is a requirement for an occupied home. Landlords can do checks not more than 2 months before the current safety certificate expires. The purpose of this is to give landlords more time to arrange access and so minimise the risk of not having a valid certificate. However, there is no requirement for checks to be done any earlier than the date when the current certificate expires.
  2. Landlords are responsible for the actions of contractors working on their behalf. This includes where they employ contractors to carry out annual gas safety checks. Landlords should make sure procedures followed by their contractors meet their obligations for gas safety and also their obligations in managing tenancies. Landlords should also make sure their contractors’ procedures are in line with their own policies for managing gas safety.
  3. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord will give reasonable notice when it needs access to do repairs or inspections. The agreement confirms the resident must allow access for repairs and inspections.
  4. The landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident on 22 August 2022 giving an appointment for her annual gas safety check. The resident called the contractor and arranged an appointment for 7 November 2022. This was in line with her tenancy obligations because she arranged an appointment for the check to be done before her current safety certificate was due to expire. The contractor should have confirmed the appointment arranged for 7 November 2022. There is no evidence it did so.
  5. Between 8 September and 28 October 2022, the contractor sent 3 further letters. The letters gave new appointment dates, told the resident she must allow access for the gas check, and said it could force entry to her home if she did not. At this time, there was no need for the landlord to issue a further letter as she had already confirmed an appointment.
  6. There is also evidence the contractor turned up for an appointment on 22 September 2022. This was unreasonable because the resident had already booked the appointment for 7 November 2022. She had also called the contractor after receiving its letter of 8 September 2022 (sent after she had booked the appointment for 7 November 2022) which said it was attending on 22 September 2022. The contractor told her it would cancel the earlier appointment but a calling card it left 22 September 2022 suggests it had not done so.
  7. The resident complained around 22 September 2022. While the landlord did not log a complaint, it asked its contractor to send her confirmation of the appointment on 7 November 2022. Again, there is no evidence the contractor did so at the time.
  8. The contractor then hand delivered another letter on 28 October 2022. It said the contractor intended to force entry on 7 November 2022 because it had not been able to gain access sooner. The letter was unreasonable because the forced entry was scheduled for the date of the appointment the resident had booked with the contractor.
  9. The contractor completed the gas safety check on 7 November 2022.
  10. The contractor also unreasonably sent reminder letters after the resident booked an appointment for her gas check in 2023. On 4 September 2023, she made an appointment for the check to be done on 6 November 2023. The date of this appointment was before her current safety certificate was due to expire.
  11. The contractor sent 2 further letters (on 11 and 25 September 2023) giving different appointment dates and telling the resident she must give access. The reminder letters were not necessary given the resident had already booked an appointment for her gas check.
  12. The reminder letters of 11 and 25 September 2023 were not in line with the landlord’s gas safety policy at the time. It had changed its policy from 1 September 2023. The revised policy did not refer to the landlord forcing entry for gas safety checks. The letters sent by the contractor on 11 and 25 September 2023 still referred to it forcing entry to do the gas check.
  13. The resident contacted the landlord and its contractor multiple times in 2022 and 2023. She cancelled appointments given in the reminder letters, confirmed the appointments she had booked and tried to stop the contractor sending further reminders.
  14. Importantly, at no point had the resident refused access and had agreed appointments in both years. The landlord’s conduct in sending letters and threatening forced entry was heavy handed.
  15. Both the landlord and contractor said the letters were automatically sent regardless of the fact she had booked appointments. The responses were inadequate, and the landlord should consider how it can prevent sending unnecessary reminder letters in future. The landlord should note that sending such letters could be regarded as a course of conduct that could cause alarm and distress.
  16. It should also consider how it can make sure any letters sent are accurate. For example, the letters sent to the resident said she had not responded to previous contacts or booked an appointment for her gas check. This was inaccurate and unfair because she had made contact multiple times after receiving the reminder letters.
  17. There was maladministration in the landlord’s administration of annual gas checks between October 2022 and August 2023. This is because its contractor sent reminder letters that were not accurate or necessary and turned up for an appointment the resident had cancelled. It is also because the reminder letters sent on 11 and 25 September 2023 were not in line with the landlord’s gas safety policy.
  18. The resident has explained the distress and inconvenience caused. It was inconvenient to make multiple calls to the contractor and landlord to cancel appointments and try to stop the reminder letters. She felt the references to the landlord forcing entry were intimidating and unfair given she had already booked appointments for her gas checks.
  19. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £350 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which details that such awards can be made where there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident but there is no permanent impact. In this case, the compensation should be higher given the aggravating feature that it occurred over 2 years and the landlord missed opportunities to review its actions and change.
  20. We have recommended the landlord reviews its administration of gas servicing to avoid sending reminder letters that are not accurate or necessary.

Repairs to restore the resident’s heating and hot water

  1. On 14 November 2022, the resident reported having no heating or hot water. The landlord raised an order to repair it as an emergency job. This was in line with its repair policy which said it would treat lack of heating and hot water as an emergency repair.
  2. The resident did not let the contractor in to do the repair later that day. The evidence shows she was not satisfied that the operative’s identification (ID) was valid or that they were qualified to work on a gas boiler.
  3. The landlord raised another order to repair the boiler on 29 November 2022. It specified that a different operative should attend and must have ID. This shows the landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns about the ID. It is not clear from its records whether the contractor responded.
  4. Another order raised by the landlord on 2 December 2022 shows the repair had not been done by then. A note added the following day said the resident had called “loads” but no one had attended and the contractor had refused to respond to an out of hours call out the previous evening.
  5. The contractor delivered temporary heaters 19 days later on 3 December 2022.
  6. The landlord’s repair records show its contractor repaired the heating, which also restored the hot water supply, on 21 December 2022. This means it took 37 days to complete the repair which was far longer than its policy timescale for urgent repairs. It is clear that part of the delay was the initial difficulty in gaining access.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 16 December 2022 did not address the resident’s ID concerns adequately. It referred to the resident feeling that the operatives did not have the required ID but did not explain this further. This meant the landlord missed the opportunity to show it understood what her concerns were and responded to them appropriately.
  8. The stage 1 response said the contractor would not attend again without a landlord representative due to the “challenges” it had faced. This implied the resident was solely responsible for the access issues. In taking this position the landlord did not consider what concerns the resident had when she asked the contractor to verify their ID. The response did not address the resolutions sought by the resident. She had asked for a different contractor to do the repair and for assurance that contractors attending her home would carry ID. The landlord should have given a response to the resolutions she asked for.
  9. However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord set out the failings it had identified. It said it would review its process for contractor ID and attending appointments and would address allegations made about the operative’s conduct. It was reasonable for the landlord to say it could not tell the resident the outcome of her allegations. The landlord offered £148 compensation for the 37 days the resident was without heating and hot water, and £200 for her time and trouble in having to chase the repair. It gave a further £40 compensation for the loss of heating and hot water in its stage 2 response of 29 June 2023. The sums were in line with its compensation policy at the time.
  10. While there were failings, the landlord resolved the issues, apologised and offered compensation in line with its policy. We think its actions resolved the matter appropriately. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to restore the resident’s heating and hot water.

Repairs caused by leaks from the flat above

  1. The resident told us she reported a leak coming through her bathroom ceiling at sometime in January 2023. She told us the contractor attended the flat above her but did not find a leak. She also told us the operative attending had shown her 2 ID cards with different names on and that she had complained to the landlord at the time.
  2. There is no reference to those events in the landlord’s repair records. However, its complaint records confirm the resident complained about the operative on 17 January 2023. The complaint records support the resident’s account of events.
  3. It was reasonable that the landlord did not take further action regarding the leak at this point. This is because its contractor had attended and not found a leak in the flat above.
  4. Around 22 February 2023 the resident reported the leak into her bathroom again. The landlord raised an order for its contractor to investigate. This was in line with its repair policy.
  5. The landlord cancelled the order on 28 February 2023 after it was unable to persuade the resident the attending operative worked for the contractor. The resident believed the operative’s ID was “fake” and did not want to make an appointment.
  6. The evidence shows the landlord attempted to resolve the leak despite cancelling the order. Its contractor did repairs in the flat above by 15 March 2023 which resolved the leak into the resident’s bathroom. The landlord’s actions were reasonable given its contractor had not been able to inspect the resident’s flat.
  7. Around 16 March 2023, the resident reported another leak from the flat above into her kitchen. The landlord raised an order for its contractor to investigate in line with its repairs policy.
  8. The contractor attended both flats on 20 March 2023. It did repairs in the flat above which resolved the leak into the resident’s kitchen. This means the landlord repaired the leak within 2 working days which was reasonable given it needed to arrange access to both flats.
  9. The landlord then raised an order on 23 March 2023 for its contractor to inspect the resident’s ceilings. Its repair records show the resident asked it to cancel the order as she wanted to arrange it for another time.
  10. An internal email dated 19 May 2023 says a different contractor attended the flat above to investigate a leak. It says the contractor visited both flats but did not find a leak. While there is no reference to this on the landlord’s repair records, it suggests the resident may have reported another leak.
  11. The first contractor inspected the resident’s flat on 26 May and repaired the ceilings on 10 July 2023. It skimmed the ceilings on 28 July and decorated on 9 August 2023. This means it took 75 days to complete the follow-on repairs from the inspection on 26 May 2023. The landlord’s repair policy at the time said it would complete non-urgent repairs within 28 days. It is not clear from the landlord’s records why it took so long to complete the follow-on repairs.
  12. The follow-on repairs had not finished by the time the landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 29 June 2023. The response said there had been a short delay in the follow-on repairs because of an operative’s sickness absence. It offered £150 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble which was in line with its compensation policy.
  13. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs following leaks from the flat above. While there were failings, the landlord resolved the issues, apologised and offered compensation in line with its policy. Its actions resolved the matter appropriately.

Repair to unblock the resident’s sink

  1. The resident reported her sink was blocked on Saturday 13 May 2023. An operative attended later that day but did not do the repair because the resident was not satisfied with their ID.
  2. The resident told us she called the landlord’s out of hours repairs service again later on Saturday 13 May 2023. She told us the call handler told her the repair was not an emergency and she should call the landlord when its service opened on Monday. While there is no reference to this in the landlord’s repair records, its later complaint responses support the resident’s account.
  3. It is not clear from the evidence why the landlord’s out of hours repair service initially accepted the blocked sink was an emergency repair and later decided it was not. The inconsistency in approach would have been confusing for the resident.
  4. The resident called the landlord on Monday 15 May 2023 and it raised an urgent repair with a different contractor. This was reasonable and shows the landlord agreed the repair was needed urgently. It also shows the landlord had considered the ID concerns the resident had raised about the first contractor.
  5. Unfortunately, the other contractor could not attend in the required 4 hour timescale for an emergency repair. However, it did complete the repair later in the evening of 15 May 2023.
  6. This means the repair was done within 3 days of the resident’s first report. It may have been done sooner if not for the issues with the operative’s ID at the initial visit. However, the landlord took reasonable steps to complete the repair quickly once it knew about it.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 22 May 2023 explained why the operative had ID cards for different contractors and in a different name. It said it would address the issues with its contractor and the evidence shows it did so. It offered to pay the resident £75 for the inconvenience caused. This sum was in line with its compensation policy at the time.
  8. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to restore the resident’s heating and hot water. While there were failings, the landlord resolved the issues, apologised and offered compensation in line with its policy. Its actions resolved the matter appropriately.

Repairs to a communal window

  1. The resident’s complaint is that the landlord’s contractor did not tell her when it was on site to repair a communal window.
  2. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 29 June 2023 said the resident had reported the window on 18 May 2023. There is no corresponding order on the landlord’s repair records around that time. This suggests that either its complaint response or its repair records are inaccurate.
  3. The stage 2 response confirms the landlord knew the resident asked for the contractor to let her know when it attended. It also confirms the contractor had not done so but said there was no need for this.
  4. The response shows the landlord had not managed the resident’s expectations. When she reported the repair, it could have told her there was no need for its contractor to tell her when it was on site. If it had agreed to her request, it should have made sure its contractor met the commitment it had given.
  5. The evidence suggests the landlord did neither. This is because the resident expected the contractor to tell her when it was on site and complained when it did not.
  6. However, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the communal window repair. While there was a service failing, the landlord apologised at the time. Its actions were sufficient and proportionate to resolve the matter appropriately.

The resident’s complaints

  1. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must:
    1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
    3. Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
  2. We looked at 7 complaints the resident made between 22 September 2022 and 25 August 2023. We have assessed them separately below.

Complaint 1

  1. On 22 September 2022 the resident complained about continuing to receive letters after she had booked her annual gas check. She also complained the landlord’s policy of using forced entry to gain access was not lawful.
  2. The landlord should have logged a complaint, acknowledged it and given a stage 1 response in line with the Code at the time (published March 2022). There is no evidence it did so and this was a failing.

Complaint 2

  1. The resident complained about the gas check letters and forced entry again on 26 October 2022. On 3 November 2022, she said the landlord had not responded to her complaints nor her concerns about the conduct of a staff member.
  2. The landlord’s records show it understood the resident had made a formal complaint. An internal email sent by its complaints team on 3 November 2022 says it was not able to deal with the complaint. The email does not explain why that was.
  3. The landlord did not deal with this complaint in line with the Code. It should have logged and investigated it and given a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It should have written to the resident to explain the reason if it had decided not to accept the complaint.

Complaint 3

  1. On 3 December 2022, the resident complained her heating and hot water had not been restored, and about the operatives not having appropriate ID. This time the landlord did log the complaint but there is no evidence it acknowledged it.
  2. The landlord’s records show the resident called on 21 December 2022 because she was not satisfied with its stage 1 response. The records do not explain why this was.
  3. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 16 March 2023 explaining the failings it had identified. These included its failure to adequately investigate and respond to the complaint at stage 1, and failing to escalate the complaint in good time. We think the landlord’s response gave an accurate account of its failings in handling this complaint.
  4. The landlord apologised and offered £175 compensation for its failings in complaint handling. This sum was in line with its compensation policy.

Complaint 4

  1. On 17 January 2023, the resident complained about the conduct of an operative that had attended her flat the day before. This was connected to her reports of leaks from the flat above. The evidence suggests the landlord initially added this to complaint 3 which was about a different matter.
  2. The landlord’s stage 2 response to complaint 3 (of 16 March 2023) said the conduct of the operative was not part of that complaint. It said it had logged the matter as a “service recovery case” and passed it to another team to investigate.
  3. The resident’s contact of 17 January 2023 met the definition of a complaint as given in the Code, however. The landlord should have logged it as a separate complaint, acknowledged it and given a stage 1 response. It was inappropriate it did not.
  4. Further, there is no evidence the landlord gave the resident any response from the service recovery case it said it had logged.

Complaint 5

  1. On 15 May 2023, the resident complained the operative that attended her blocked sink on 13 May 2023 had not shown appropriate ID. She also complained she was not kept informed after reporting the blocked sink to the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s records show it spoke with the resident on 19 May 2023 but there is no detail of the discussion held. This is another example of inadequate record keeping by the landlord.
  3. The landlord gave its stage 1 response within the 10 working day timescale required by the Code.
  4. An internal email dated 1 June 2023 shows the resident disputed the account of events given in the stage 1 response. She was also unhappy the response had not addressed other matters discussed with the landlord on 19 May 2023. The landlord appropriately decided to escalate the complaint.
  5. On 6 June 2023, we wrote to the landlord listing 7 issues the resident had told us the landlord had not given complaint responses for. The landlord decided to add 6 of the items we raised to this complaint.
  6. This was not in line with the Code. Paragraph 5.7 of the Code at the time (published March 2022) said additional matters raised during investigation should be added if relevant. It said where the stage 1 response had been given, the matter should be logged as a new complaint.
  7. The landlord should have decided if the items we raised with it on 6 June 2023 were related to this complaint and should only have added related matters. It should have logged new complaints where the matters were not related. For example, there is no evidence the landlord had previously dealt with complaints about its handling of the leaks from the flat above or repairs to the communal window.
  8. The landlord’s decision to add the 6 items to this complaint meant it did not give the resident access to both its complaint stages. It also left the landlord with only 1 opportunity (at stage 2) to resolve the matters through its complaint process.
  9. The landlord decided log the matter of its handling of her ASB reports, also on the list of issues we sent on 6 June 2023, as a separate complaint. This was appropriate and in line with the Code.
  10. The landlord gave its stage 2 response of 29 June 2023 within the 20 working day timescale required by the Code. It addressed the issues the landlord had added to the complaint as well as the matter of the blocked sink. It also addressed the resolutions the resident had asked for. For example, it explained what repairs were outstanding and when it would do them.
  11. The stage 2 response explained the failings the landlord had identified from its investigation. For example, it agreed it had not kept the resident informed and had given conflicting information on some matters.
  12. The landlord apologised and offered £300 compensation for its failings in handling this complaint. This sum was in line with its compensation policy.

Complaint 6

  1. On 6 June 2023, the resident complained about the landlord’s contractors not carrying ID. The landlord logged this as a separate complaint. After speaking with the resident on 8 June 2023, it decided it was about the same ID issues as complaint 5.
  2. It gave a stage 1 response on 8 June 2023 which said it had previously addressed the matter in its stage 1 response to complaint 5. It confirmed it had escalated complaint 5 and was due to give a stage 2 response. The landlord’s response was reasonable under the circumstances.

Complaint 7

  1. On 23 August 2023 we emailed the landlord saying the resident had told us she had complained about its administration of annual gas checks but had not received a complaint response.
  2. The landlord spoke to the resident on 25 August 2023 and realised it had not dealt with her complaints about annual gas checks and its use of forced entry. It decided to log a complaint. This was reasonable and suggests the landlord wanted to address the resident’s complaints on the matter.
  3. It gave its stage 1 response on 11 September 2023 which said it understood the complaint was about it being “allowed” to use forced entry for gas checks. It said the resolution the resident wanted was for it to confirm that it had the legal right to use forced entry. While the response explained its obligations and the process it followed, it did not explain what legal right it had to use forced entry. This means the response did not address the matter complained about.
  4. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 12 September 2023. She said the stage 1 response had not addressed what she complained about. She also complained that information on her gas safety certificate was not accurate. The landlord appropriately escalated her complaint.
  5. However, it wrote to her on 13 October 2023 saying it had closed the complaint because it had already given a stage 2 response as part of complaint 3. This was not correct because complaint 3 had been about a different matter. The stage 2 response given on that complaint made no reference to annual gas checks or use of forced entry.
  6. It was inappropriate that the landlord closed this complaint without giving a stage 2 response. It meant the landlord missed the opportunity for a different staff member to review the response given at stage 1 and decide if it had given a fair and accurate response. It meant the landlord missed the opportunity to address the matter the resident had complained about.

Conclusions

  1. The evidence shows the landlord appropriately recognised some of its complaint handling failings and offered a reasonable level of compensation. In total, this amounted to £475 – more than this service might have ordered in the circumstance.
  2. There remained, however, some complaint handling issues that went unacknowledged by the landlord. This included:
    1. Its failure to log and respond to complaints 1, 2 and 4 above when it should have.
    2. Its decision to add unrelated matters to complaint 5 which meant the resident did not have access to both stages of its complaint process.
    3. Its decision to close complaint 7 without issuing a stage 2 response.
  3. In light of this, we have determined that overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. We have ordered it to apologise to the resident for the shortfalls in its approach. In the Ombudsman’s view, the offer of an apology on top of the compensation it has already offered is sufficient and proportionate in putting things right.

Review of policies and practices

  1. In this case we found multiple failings in the landlord’s record keeping and its complaint handling. We found similar failings in other cases and have been in contact with the landlord about improvements it needed to make. In February 2024, the landlord gave us information about improvements it has made since the events in this case. We have not made orders for further improvements to its policies and practices in this case. However, the landlord should consider the failings identified and decide if it needs to make further changes.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme the following matters are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. The landlord’s handling of a contractor’s conduct at an appointment on 28 June 2023.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to restore the resident’s heating and hot water.
    2. Repairs caused by a leak from the flat above.
    3. Repairs to unblock the resident’s sink.
    4. Repairs to a communal window.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s administration of annual gas safety checks.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise.

The apology must acknowledge the failings we have identified and the impact they had on the resident. The landlord must send us a copy of its apology.

  1. Pay the resident compensation of £350 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her annual gas checks. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
  2. Contact the resident to discuss any outstanding concerns and/or complaints the resident wishes to raise.
  3. Provide documentary evidence to show it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord:
    1. Reviews its administration of annual gas checks to avoid sending reminder letters that are not accurate or necessary.
    2. Pays the £1,088 total compensation offered in its complaint responses if it has not already done so. The compensation offers are part of the reasons for our findings of reasonable redress. They are also why we did not order the landlord to pay compensation for its complaint handling failures.
    3. Considers the record keeping and complaint handling failures we have identified. It should decide if it needs to make further changes to its approach to prevent similar failings in future.