Peabody Trust (202225388)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225388

Peabody Trust

17 October 2024

 

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 report of blocked access to a communal area.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2001. The property is a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat.
  2. On 1 October 2022, the resident notified the landlord using its web complaint form that she had been unable to access her electric meter for 2 years. She said the meter was located behind a door, in a communal space, which her neighbours had either blocked or changed the locks to.
  3. The resident said her energy supplier had also been unable to gain access and as she was unable to provide accurate meter readings, she believed she was paying more whenever energy prices increased. She asked the landlord to either relocate the meter or instruct her neighbours not to block access.  In the same form, she confirmed that she had not reported the issue before.
  4. The landlord initially treated this as a service request, but at the explicit request of the resident, it then logged a complaint and issued a stage 1 response on 21 October 2022. It said there had been no service failure as it had not previously been made aware of the issue. However, it would now write to the residents of the building to advise that blocking access to communal areas was a breach of tenancy. It would also instruct contractors to replace the lock and then write to the residents to update them. It apologised for the lack of communication and inconvenience caused. While the landlord found that there had been no service failure, it offered discretionary compensation of £100.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 28 October 2022 and said that she had missed the cutoff for providing a meter reading to her supplier ahead of a price increase, and that the offered compensation amount was small compared to the increased energy charges. She asked the landlord to give her a date when the lock would be changed, thus allowing her access to the meter.
  6. Following intervention by the Ombudsman, the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 16 February 2023. It noted that the resident had highlighted the time sensitive nature of her request but it had failed to mark the job as a priority for its contractor, and the contractor did not have an active job for this. It was unclear what had happened, but the lock should have been changed on 9 February 2023, with a letter sent to residents reminding them not to tamper with it.
  7. The landlord said the resident’s complaint had highlighted issues and it was changing repair reporting systems and arranging direct access for its staff to the contractor’s repair system. It had also met with the contractor’s directors to improve communication, and a review of the complaint process was undertaken due to the handling of the resident’s complaint. The review had resulted in a change of management, recruitment of additional complaint handling staff, and an update of the complaints and compensation policy.
  8. The landlord offered an apology for its failure to escalate the complaint to stage 2, necessitating the involvement of this Service. It had addressed this with the responsible individual, and a reminder of the importance of escalating complaints when requested was cascaded to the wider team. It offered an additional £150 for the resident’s trouble and upset and £100 for its poor complaint handling, bringing its total compensation offer for the complaint to £350. It also offered to contribute to the cost of the resident’s energy bill and asked her to provide an up-to-date bill and a copy of the new bill once a meter reading was provided to the supplier.
  9. Despite the landlord’s assurances in its stage 2 response, the lock was not changed in February 2023. Instead, it was not until June 2023 that a key was provided and the resident was able to gain access to the meter.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and in June 2023 she escalated her complaint to this Service. She said the landlord had failed to understand her complaint and that the communal door remained inaccessible to her until June 2023. She was unhappy with the delay and the level of compensation offered. She wanted the landlord to explain how it would respond if her neighbours blocked access again, and to increase the offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the report of blocked communal access

  1. The landlord has accepted some of its own and its contractor’s poor service levels in its complaint responses. Therefore, the question before this Service is whether those failings amount to maladministration and, if so, whether appropriate redress was offered to put things right.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it is responsible for communal areas and repairs resulting from its action or inaction. The policy asks residents to notify the landlord when they notice the need for works in these areas; this can be done via the landlord’s website (web form), self-serve portal (accessible from the website) or by calling the Customer Hub.
  3. The policy categorises service requests; the resident’s report met the definition of ‘next available’, a non-urgent repair required to rectify a fault where works are to be scheduled to the next available resource. To be completed within 28 calendar days (average target of 10 working days).
  4. There is no evidence that the resident reported this repair until she logged the complaint online on 1 October 2022. The landlord responded the same day to advise the request was logged, and an update would be provided within 5-7 working days. However, the resident reverted on 4 October 2022 and asked that her contact be treated as a complaint and that she needed it to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
  5. It is not ordinarily this Service’s expectation, or within the landlord’s policy, to treat a service request as a complaint, regardless of the urgency of the situation. The landlord should first be given the opportunity to assess the request, determine the required degree of urgency, and take action accordingly, before a complaint is logged about how it responded. However, where it obliged the resident’s request and logged a complaint, it should also have still progressed the service request in line with its policy.
  6. It is not clear whether the landlord pursued the service request alongside its complaint process. Certainly, the repair should have been carried out within 28 calendar days, but was not. Further, the resident had advised that there was an urgency to the matter so the landlord should have at least considered if it could instruct the repair sooner than its policy timeframes.
  7. Despite having informed the resident that the contractor would replace the lock and contact her in both its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord did not actually resolve the issue until June 2023, 8 months later. The evidence provided by the resident shows that there was some confusion on the landlord’s part as to which lock needed to be changed. The resident had clearly stated that she could not open a communal door behind which the meter was located, but the landlord and its contractor inspected the meter cupboard itself, and so the communal door remained inaccessible.
  8. The resident says she was denied access to the communal area for 2 years, but as the landlord was not made aware of this, it was not expected to take action prior to October 2022. However, when it was made aware, it should have carried out the repair within its stipulated timeframes. As it failed to do so, and this had a detrimental impact on the resident, there were clearly failings in the landlord’s handling of the repair.
  9. The landlord took some steps after the complaint was logged to acknowledge those failings and offer redress, including: providing feedback to its contractors; liaising with them to review how improvements can be made; apologising; and awarding compensation. These actions demonstrate that the landlord took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes.
  10. The landlord also offered to contribute towards the resident’s cost of energy if she could provide her current bill alongside the new one after a meter reading had been provided to the supplier. The resident told this Service that she was unable to produce the requested bills as she could not prove to the provider what dates she had used the energy. It is not clear what the resident means when she says she was unable to provide dates as the bill she was in possession of at the time of the complaint would have been sufficient, and a new bill after she had obtained an accurate reading for comparison. It is the opinion of this Service that the landlord’s offer to reimburse energy costs on the production of bills was reasonable.
  11. However, the landlord continued to make mistakes after its complaint responses and did not fulfil the request as advised. The resident had to get back in touch with this Service and request assistance with getting the matter resolved. Further, this Service contacted the landlord on 22 February 2023, a few days after its stage 2 response, to confirm that the resident was still unable to gain access via the communal door. Despite this, the landlord did not arrange the access until a further 4 months later.
  12. The resident was then asked to provide pictures (including of the meter cupboard which she was unable to access and was the reason for her complaint). While she had clearly explained which door was the issue, and an operative had previously inspected the relevant area, the resident still had to liaise with the landlord further to confirm which door required repair. The additional time and effort spent to get the resolution promised in the landlord’s complaint responses should not have been necessary and no doubt exacerbated the resident’s upset and frustration.
  13. These ongoing failings amount to maladministration by the landlord. It is, therefore, ordered to apologise further and pay the resident an additional £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its prolonged failures, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  14. The resident submits that the landlord has not paid her the compensation offered during the complaint process, and that she has logged this issue with it as a separate complaint. As no evidence of this complaint has been provided to this Service, it is not considered as part of this investigation. However, the landlord is required to provide evidence that it has complied with the Ombudsman’s orders for additional compensation to be paid to the resident, and it should take the opportunity to demonstrate that the previous offers of compensation have been paid also.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy applicable at the time defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its employees or those acting on its behalf. It set out a 2-stage complaint process with timeframes for responding to complaints; namely 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. The landlord logged the resident’s complaint on 4 October 2022 and acknowledged it the same day. It did not, however, issue a stage 1 response until 13 working days later, outside its stipulated timeframe. It then did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s stage 2 escalation request despite that she chased the landlord until this Service intervened.
  3. The stage 2 response was then issued 76 working days after the resident’s escalation request, significantly outside the landlord’s policy timeframes. It further responded to the complaint at stage 2 as being about a locked communal cupboard. The landlord then advised the resident that it had based its stage 2 response on the complaint description it received from this Service rather than the complaint description the resident herself had already provided (and it responded to at stage 1).
  4. The landlord did attempt to contact the resident prior to issuing its response, however, her original complaint form was already available to it at the time and such an error should not have occurred. This further added to her frustration and feeling that it was failing to understand or address the issue and her complaint.
  5. The above-mentioned failures in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint amount to maladministration. The landlord has already apologised for its complaint handling failures and offered £100 in compensation. However, this amount does not sufficiently reflect the trouble, inconvenience, and effort the resident was required make to obtain a response, including seeking the Ombudsman’s assistance at stage 2. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 for the upset and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  6. On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The new Code applies from 1 April 2024 and the Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with it. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. As a result, no specific order is made on this case with regard to the landlord’s compliance with the Code, and the contents of its policies and procedures in that regard.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Report of blocked access to a communal area.
    2. Associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident with an apology (with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to ensure the apology is sincere and appropriate) for its failures in the handling of the resident’s repair report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident (and not offset against any rent arrears) £350 compensation, in addition to the compensation offered during the complaint process, as follows:
      1. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repair report.
      2. £100 in recognition of the upset and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the associated complaint.
    3. Provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord, if it has not already done so, provide the resident with a statement of her rent account showing when the compensation previously offered was applied to the account.