Peabody Trust (202222979)

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

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222979

Peabody Trust

29 May 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 was about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to install an electric parking gate.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was a disabled wheelchair user. He reported, including through his MP on 16 October 2024, that he had severe spinal pains, degenerative disc disease and functional neurological disorder. The landlord had let to him one of 4 car parking spaces attached to the block of flats where he lived. Another space was occupied by his disabled neighbour and the other 2 spaces were for staff parking. The resident was reliant on his mobility car which he accessed through a rear tail lift.
The landlord merged with the current landlord in or around April 2023.
There was no dispute that the previous landlord had offered to erect electric gates. We have seen an email dated 17 February 2021 in which the then landlord agreed to erect an electric gate.
According to the resident, on a date after 30 December 2022, he made 2 complaints to his former landlord, as well 2 previous “informal” complaints.
In an undated letter of or around April 2023, the resident’s Occupational Therapist (OT) set out that the resident was being blocked in by neighbours and recommended that the landlord erect electric barriers operated by a fob. It is understood there was no local authority grant funding for the works.
On 18 August 2023 the current landlord wrote to the resident stating that it agreed to install an electric gate.
On 24 October 2023 we wrote to the landlord asking it to reply to the resident’s complaint that the landlord had promised to install an electric parking barrier but it had not yet been installed.
On 20 November 2023 the landlord wrote with its stage 1 response as follow:
1. Under its complaint policy, it would normally only go back over 6 months period. However, “for context”, it had noted that the resident was promised the electric gates by the previous landlord.
2. The quote for the barriers had been received and approved. It would take 6- 7 weeks to get the materials. He would be notified with an installation date. The merger with the previous landlord had caused delays. It recognised the impact on the resident’s health and well-being. It would normally update its residents where there were delays in sourcing materials. It apologised this did not happen in this case. It was mindful the delays had caused distress and inconveniences. It apologised for the “challenges with communication” and the delay to its complaint response. It offered £150 for poor customer service and communication including to the delay to its complaint response.
On 8 February 2024, the Aids and Adaptations (A&A) team stated it could not assist s this was a parking management issue. This did not appear to have been communicated to the resident at that time.
On 2 March 2024 the resident asked to escalate his complaint and for the landlord to install the electric gate.
On 19 June 2024 the landlord told the resident that it would not be installing an electric gate as the car park was not “big enough and would cause problems for the landlord’s staff and disability vehicles”.
Nevertheless, the landlord arranged for its building surveyor to attend on 5 July 2024 regarding the installation of an electronic gate. The surveyor emailed internally that he was unable to assist. He referred to a quotation of several thousands of pounds. The landlord did not notify the resident that the surveyor would not be attending.
On 6 July 2024 the resident’s carer submitted a complaint on the resident’s behalf that the timescale provided in its Stage 1 complaint response had elapsed, the landlord had changed its decision, and the resident requested a face-to-face meeting with the landlord. The surveyor had not attended the appointment the day before. The resident had incurred his carer’s costs. The resident also wrote that he wanted to explain the difficulties he faced and the anxiety and panic he felt every time he tried to get into his car.
On 9 July 2024 the landlord apologised for not notifying the resident the surveyor’s appointment was cancelled, stating this had been an administrative error. The A&A team could not assist with installing the gate.
On 24 July 2024 the landlord wrote its stage 1 response to the second complaint as follows:
1. The resident was not notified that the scheduled surveying visit on 5 July 2024 had been cancelled. It apologised. Its surveyor had cancelled the appointment due to an A&A report being submitted. The A&A team had advised that they did not install parking barriers. Though the recommendation came from an OT, it was not classed as a disabled adaptation. It apologised that it did not inform the resident and for the distress caused.
2. It offered to help him to search for an alternative home. It appreciated it was “difficult to describe the distress this situation had caused (the resident)”. It regretted “any” inconvenience, frustration, or disruption this had caused in his daily life.
3. It offered £75 for the miscommunication by the surveying team.
On 25 July 2024, the resident asked to escalate the complaint. He said his complaint about the electric gate had already been escalated. He also stated that the landlord had not paid the compensation due to him.
On 19 August 2024, the resident wrote that he was chasing for the “5th time” his request to escalate his complaint about the gate not being installed and he had not been paid compensation he had been promised. On 19 September 2024, he chased payment of £100.
On 11 December 2024, the landlord wrote with its response to both complaints.
1. It understood that the resident was deeply disappointed and frustrated with the cancelled appointment. It apologised for the stage 1 response. It said that this demonstrated poor customer service and a lack of regard to the efforts he had made to accommodate this appointment. It should have explained why the appointment was cancelled.
2. The appointment was cancelled because the A&A team had reviewed the OT report and had decided that the works requested could not be carried out by its team. Under the A&A policy, parking bollards or gates were not deemed to be a disabled adaptation, they were used for the purpose of managing parking. It appreciated that parking could be difficult for him.
3. It would work with its parking contractor to ensure that they carried out more regular patrols to prevent unauthorised and inconsiderate parking and consider what measures it could put in place to improve the management of the carpark.
4. It apologised he “felt” mislead. It recognised it had said it had planned to install vehicle gates but it had overturned its decision.
5. It would focus on using other methods to better manage the parking on site.
6. The complaint case would remain open until the following actions were completed:
  1. Neighbourhoods Team to confirm they had asked its parking control contractors to patrol the carpark more frequently.
  2. Neighbourhoods Team to work with those contractors to see what other feasible measures could be put in place.
  3. Formally write to the resident with a plan of action.
7. It would close the complaint after the above actions were completed and would confirm this in writing.
8. Its complaint handling had been “poor”. It had responded within an extended deadline but this had not been agreed. There had been a delay to acknowledging and escalating the complaint. It apologised. A review of the complaints team had recently taken place.
9. It apologised for not giving him advance notice of the cancelled surveyors appointment. It recognised its poor communication had caused him great distress and inconvenience.
10. It recognised that the challenges regarding access for his vehicle was an issue that it needed to address.
11. It offered compensation totalling £900 as follows:
  1. £200 for the complaint regarding the missed appointment consisting of:

(1) £100 offered at stage 1 for the missed appointment.

(2) A further £100 for the delay to its stage 1 response (not extending its timescale) and to action his request for escalation.

£400 for the complaint about the installation of the electronic gates consisting of:

(1) £100 offered at its Stage 1 for the delay to that response.

It offered a further £300 consisting of:

(1) £150 for “compensation that was not paid to the original offer” (50) and for changing its decision about the installation.

(2) £150 for failing to log his complaint, its delay to its Stage 1 response (not extending its timescale) and escalating his stage 2 request.

Assessment and findings

The evidence showed that the resident experienced significant difficulties with parking that impacted him considerably. It was not disputed that visitors, residents and other people would often block his car in with their cars. This meant that he was prevented from attending hospital appointments. On one occasion, a few years prior to this complaint, he and his carer were assaulted in the car park which had resulted in a conviction against his assailant. He reported to the landlord, including on 12 July 2024, that he suffered with panic attacks and anxiety as a result.
In the circumstances, we would expect the landlord to consider any duties it had to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 and to consider the resident’s disability and circumstances in any event.
Under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010, (“the Act”) the landlord has a duty to make certain reasonable adjustments where they relate to the enjoyment of the premises, or the use of a benefit or facility to which the resident is entitled as a result of the letting. This applies to where the resident is under a disability as defined by the Act. Under section 149 of the Act, a landlord deemed to be a public body has a duty to eliminate discrimination and promote equality.
Section 6 of the Act defines disability as a substantial and physical …impairment (that) has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on (the person’s) ability to carry out normal day to day activities. Ultimately, it would be for a court to make such a decision. We do not make decisions whether a resident is under a disability but we would expect the landlord to consider this and act accordingly. In this case, it had recorded from the previous landlord that the resident had a “disability indicator”.
While making a reasonable adjustment would not extend to altering the physical features of a building (such as creating a parking space), it would extend to considering adjustments to access to that space, either by its processes (such as monitoring the use of those spaces) or providing an auxiliary aid.
We did not see evidence that the landlord articulated whether it had considered that the resident was disabled under the Act or framed its decision by reference to the Act. However, we would expect a landlord to show by its actions that it had undertaken those considerations. The landlord had initially agreed to install the gates and it referred the request to its A &A team. This indicated that the landlord treated the resident as if disabled under the Act. However, the landlord would be entitled to take into account other considerations such as cost and the nature of the request.
The landlord’s A&A policy set out as follows:
1. A&A were “alterations or improvements carried out to a resident with a disability’s home or communal area to enable them to continue to carry out day to day activities”.
2. It only accepted requests for major adaptations that have been assessed and recommended by an OT.
3. It would first expect the landlord to apply for a grant from the local authority. Where no grant was forthcoming, it may consider funding an adaptation.
4. “We decline requests for making aids and adaptations where we believe that this is not an effective use of resources or best value for money. For example, where it is not physically possible to alter the property in the requested way, the aid/adaption would involve big structural works or if an adaptation would present a health and safety risk. In this situation, we work with the resident and, where appropriate, their occupational therapist to consider other options such as suitable alternative accommodation.”
According to the records, the issue was referred to its A&A team on 8 February 2024 which stated that it did not install parking barriers. The landlord’s letter of 16 December 2024 stated that parking bollards or gates were classified as parking management measures rather than disability adaptations. The case was reassigned to its asset management team on 9 February 2024. On 23 July 2024, the landlord enquired internally whether a surveyor could consider if this was a resident improvement request. In other words, the landlord did not consider the installation to be an adjustment, reasonable or otherwise. We cannot make a decision whether this conclusion was correct. We do not make decisions about interpretations of the Act as tis would be for a court. However, this demonstrated that the landlord considered it.
The landlord stated that approach to the request was set out in its A&A policy, namely that parking barriers were not an adaptation. We have not seen this reference in the policy and we will make a recommendation in this regard.
Initially, the landlord intended to install an electric barrier or gate. The complaint concerned the landlord’s delay and then it changing its decision. We would normally expect the landlord to abide by its promises but there are circumstances where a landlord may be entitled to change its mind. In this case, the landlord would be entitled, and indeed has a duty, to consider its resources. This is because it needs to make best use of its limited financial resources.
According to an internal note of 19 June 2024, the landlord initially told the resident that it had changed its decision because an electronic gate was impractical. On 12 September 2024, the landlord explained to the resident that the request was unlikely to be granted because of the costs of installing, servicing and maintaining the gate. In their correspondence with the landlord in October 2024, the resident’s MP referred to a quote of £5,000 and internal note of 27 June 2024 had noted that an even higher quote had been discussed in the past. The landlord was entitled to take the cost of installation into account. Any adjustments need only be “reasonable”.
The frustration caused by the landlord changing its mind was aggravated by arranging a surveyor visit and then not informing the resident it would not attend. The evidence showed this was an administrative error. The surveyor informed his admin staff on 27 June 2024 that it was a matter for the A&A team but the message was not passed on. The officer concerned apologised. It was reasonable for the landlord to recognise the error, that it had changed its decision and this would impact the resident. The landlord also made an offer of compensation.
We would expect the landlord to consider alternatives to the parking barriers and how to manage the parking issues. This was particularly important given the resident’s circumstances and because he had repeatedly been told that barriers would be installed. Whilst the landlord’s change of position was understandable, it needed to fully recognise the disappointment caused as a result, and consider what else it could reasonably do to manage or mitigate the issues the resident was reporting. The evidence showed that the landlord made a number of internal enquiries regarding the resident’s request as follows:
1. On 24 July 2024, the landlord noted that a parking bollard had existed but it meant that the disabled residents had to stop their vehicles on the road and get out and back in their vehicles to lower it.
2. According to its email to the resident’s MP, it offered relocating the resident and enhancing parking control measures. It also considered fitting a yale lock to the existing gate but that would present difficulties, presumably for the same reason that a mechanical bollard was problematic.
3. According to an internal email of 12 December 2024, the enforcement contractor reported that, since 1st October 2024, it had attended 32 times and issued 7 tickets. It said it would increase its attendances. In its Stage 2 response, it said it would request more regular patrols.
4. On 2 January 2025, it arranged to paint yellow cross hatch lines to make the signage clearer.
5. It wrote to the resident on 12 May 2025 referring to a meeting of 11 February 2025. According to that letter, it had placed an order for disabled parking signs in February/March. While the quote had been approved in email of 3 April 2025, the signage had still not been put up.
6. While it was unlikely to do so, it offered to reconsider installing an electric gate.
The resident told us in May 2025 that the cross-hatch lines and enforcement tickets have had little effect. We also note there was a significant delay in the landlord following up its promise in its stage 2 letter for an action plan, from December 2024 to May 2025.
There was little evidence that the landlord considered addressing the issue as a breach of tenancy by any of its residents. The resident’s own tenancy agreement stated that the tenant was “not to park or cause to be parked any vehicle on the Premises or on any land belonging to the Association except in defined parking areas and only in the manner permitted or required by the Association in accordance with any regulations or by-laws, but not such as to cause nuisance or obstruction”. It is likely that the residents of the block occupied their homes under the same or similar terms.
It was not disputed that the landlord’s residents were parking in the car park. On 29 December 2023, the resident reported a resident parking in the staff bay and who disregarded the tickets issued by the landlord’s parking enforcement contractors. The landlord internally had noted on 24 July 2024 that other residents were using the car park area.
We saw some evidence of the landlord intending to take action. The landlord stated internally it would reinstate a missing fence. We also noted that on one occasion on 10 September 2024, the landlord considered writing a letter to the block. However, we saw nothing else.
We are not satisfied that the landlord fully explored taking action against its tenants under the tenancy agreement. If there was evidence of breaches of tenancy, we would expect the landlord to consider taking steps in enforcement action. If its residents were abusive to the resident, then we would expect the landlord to address this under its anti-social behaviour policy. The resident has informed us that there had been CCTV in the car park. We will make an order that the landlord follows this up.
We accept that action against non-residents, unless visitors of its residents, would be limited. However, we do not know how and whether the parking tickets were enforced, against either the landlord’s own residents, their visitors or trespassers. While we have noted the increased use of patrols, the signage and cross hatch markings, we consider that there should be a further review and we will make an order accordingly.
We recognise the frustration and disappointment for the resident caused by the landlord’s decision making. However, we do not find service failure in the landlord’s decision not to install electronic gates. This is because the evidence showed that the landlord considered the request. We also consider that, even if an adjustment under the Act, the landlord was entitled to reconsider its decision and cite cost as a reason. We consider that the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation of £250 adequately addressed the surveyor not attending and the landlord changing its mind and the resulting disappointment caused to the resident.
We have noted the landlord working with its enforcement contractors and improving the car park signage. However, we are not satisfied that the landlord fully considered alternatives or followed through its assurances in the stage 2 letter in a timely manner. We are not satisfied that it fully considered alternatives measures. In the circumstances, we find maladministration in relation to the resident’s complaint about his request to install electronic parking barriers.

Complaint handling

It was not disputed there were considerable delays to addressing the resident’s complaint. The resident had to chase a number of times, including payment of the compensation offered and needing to contact this Service.
The landlord’s explanation that the appointment was cancelled because the A&A team had reviewed the OT report was confusing, as the OT report had been reviewed in February 2024. However, the landlord had already explained it was an administrative error.
The landlord offered compensation. Those offers were confusing. We have summarised them as follows:
1. On 20 November 2023 it offered £150 for the delay to its Stage 1 response. It only paid £100 which the resident had to chase. The landlord added this to its Stage 2 offer as if it were fresh compensation.
2. On 25 July 2024 it offered £75 for the missed appointment, being, we assume, the requested carer’s costs. This then was referred to as £100.
3. On 11 December 2024 it offered £100 for, effectively, the delay to the Stage 1 response about the missed appointment it had recognised previously and for the delay to escalating the complaint. It also offered £150 for the change of decision which appeared to, confusingly, include the £50 that was overdue from November 2023. It also offered £150 for delays to both its Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses.
4. We conclude that the landlord offered:
  1. £100 for the missed appointment.
  2. £150 for changing its mind.
  3. £375 for its complaint handling.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to escalate his complaint about the missed surveyor appointment was unreasonable. The complaint officer had replied that they reviewed “my” compensation offer and found the (initial) £75 fair and reasonable for the missed appointment and miscommunication.
However, the landlord reconsidered the request to escalate his complaint. It properly addressed the resident’s dissatisfaction in its stage 2 response. The landlord acknowledged its delays to its complaint responses and the inadequacy of its stage 1 response. It apologised and offered compensation. We consider the overall amount of £375 reasonable and in line with our own guidance. In the circumstances, we consider that the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling. However, we will make a recommendation that the landlord reviews the errors in its complaint handling in this case and refers to it in its training.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to install an electric parking gate.
In accordance with Paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident, in addition to the amount the landlord has already offered, the sum of £500 for the distress and inconvenience a) given it did not fully explore alternatives and the delay in considering alternatives at all and b) for the delay in following up its assurances made in its stage 2 response.
2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should set out an action plan to include:
  1. Considering any action it could take in relation to its own tenants parking in the car park and blocking the resident’s car.
  2. Seeking a report from its enforcement company as to what action it is taking in relation to the issuing of and enforcing parking tickets.
  3. Considering using or installing CCTV or dummy CCTV.
  4. Reviewing its decision to install electronic gates in accordance with its letter of 11 May 2025.
  5. Confirming to us and the resident that it will review the position on at least an annual basis.
3. Within 6 weeks, the landlord should write to the resident and the Ombudsman with the outcome of the action plan.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 6 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should review the complaint handing in this complaint, the failures highlighted in this report and confirm to the Ombudsman that it will use those lessons in its staff training.
2. The landlord should ensure that if it refers to its policies, that it attaches the policy itself or quotes directly from it.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.