Peabody Trust (202229317)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229317

Peabody Trust

3 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns about the replacement of communal lifts.
    2. The associated complaint

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder.
  2. The property is on the ground floor of a 4-floor mid-rise block.
  3. The landlord sent the resident a Notice of Intention for lift replacement works on 4 April 2022. The landlord followed this up with a Notice of Estimates for Qualifying Work on 22 September 2022. The resident responded to this on 26 September 2022 asking to inspect the estimates as she did not agree to pay anything towards the costs. The resident and the landlord discussed the works in various e-mails between September 2022 and October 2022. The resident had an independent contractor provide a quote for a lift replacement on 24 October 2022. The landlord held a meeting with the resident and her fellow leaseholders on 27 October 2022 where it discussed several leaseholders’ questions about the work. It said at this meeting that it would consider leaseholders request for it to change the specification of the work.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident and her fellow leaseholders on 23 January 2023. It said it would not repeat the consultation and that it was proceeding with the lift replacement. It said it had amended the type of lift it would be installing from a category 2 to a category 1 lift. The resident responded on 26 January 2023 saying she was unhappy with the landlord’s letter. She felt the landlord should re-complete the consultation due to changing the technical specification of the lift. She continued to communicate with the landlord between January 2023 and March 2023 about the proposed works, including asking for additional documentation in order to get her own quote completed. The landlord sent the resident the original tender documents on 6 April 2023.
  5. The resident contacted the Ombudsman who asked the landlord to raise a complaint for her on 19 October 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 November 2023. It said that the works had been competitively tendered and the contractor that submitted the cheapest quote appointed to carry out the work. The landlord said it had followed the correct process under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA) and received no nominations for contractors from any leaseholders. It said it had considered the resident’s concerns but would now be proceeding with the works.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 4 November 2023. She felt the cost the landlord was asking to her to pay was not reasonable, noting again that other contractors had quoted her less than half the cost for the lift replacement. She again stated she believed the landlord should have performed a new tender due to changing the lift specification. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 4 December 2023. It partially upheld her complaint, offering her £100 for delays in its communication. The landlord again said it had followed the correct processes in arranging the work and it had made its decisions in the best interests of the leaseholders.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 20 December 2023 to advise that she did not accept the landlord’s response to her complaint. On 29 December 2023 it offered the resident an additional £100 compensation for failures in handling her complaint. The resident confirmed on 10 February 2024 that she wished for the Ombudsman to consider her complaint. She said the landlord did not seek value for money and did not take into consideration the wishes of the leaseholders. To resolve her complaint the resident said wanted to only pay 50% of the bill and for the landlord to provide her with the itemised final bill. Since the resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman the landlord has completed the works and issued the bill for the lift replacement to the residents.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. The First Tier Tribunal Property Chamber (FTT) deals with residential leasehold disputes between leaseholders and their landlords. The FTT can make determinations on all aspects of liability to pay a service charge including by whom, to who, how much and when a service charge is payable. In order to decide liability, the FTT also decides whether service charge costs have been reasonably incurred and if so whether the standard of any services or works for which the leaseholder has been charged is reasonable. The Ombudsman will not therefore, as part of this investigation, consider if the amount the landlord is asking her to pay for the lift renovation is reasonable. Nor will the Ombudsman comment on whether the lift did require replacement.
  2. The resident also raised concerns about the landlord’s decision to change the lift specification from a type B to a type A, believing that this made the original tender illegitimate. Because of this the resident believed the landlord should have re-started the section 20 process. The Ombudsman does not have the ability to define what would constitute a significant change in the specification in legal terms or if this would result in the original section 20 notices becoming illegitimate. The Ombudsman believes the resident’s concerns about the tender process would potentially be better dealt with by either the FTT or through the courts. The Ombudsman has therefore not considered this aspect of the resident’s complaint as part of this investigation. This investigation has therefore focused on how the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns and its communication about these.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the replacement of communal lifts.

  1. The resident’s lease states it is her responsible to pay ‘a reasonable part of the costs…incurred or to be incurred…in carrying out repairs to the property and to the remainder of the building within the repairing obligations’ of the landlord. The lease also makes it the landlord’s responsibility to keep the property ‘in repair including decorative repair the structure and exterior of the property and the building’.
  2. Under Section 20 of the LTA a landlord is required to consult with a leaseholder before it undertakes any work which will cost any leaseholder more than £250, including repairs, maintenance and improvements to the building and estate where their property is situated. Whilst this investigation will not determine what constituted a legally legitimate notice, it will consider if the landlord has taken into consideration its legal obligations as part of the lift replacement process.
  3. The landlord has considered its need to consult residents under the LTA by sending a Notice of Intention for Qualifying Work on 4 April 2022. This gave residents the opportunity to make observations about the scale of works, as well as to nominate her own contractors for the work. The landlord’s actions in sending the resident this notice were appropriate.
  4. The resident has mentioned that she did not receive a copy of this letter. The landlord has provided a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman, whilst it has also demonstrated that another leaseholder raised an observation following this demonstrating that it sent these. The Ombudsman cannot say that the landlord is at fault for any failures due to post issues.
  5. The landlord followed this up with a Notice of Estimates for Qualifying Work on 22 September 2022 following its tender process. This notice set out the cost of the work and proposed that it appointed the contractor who had provided the most competitive estimate. As neither the resident nor any of her fellow leaseholders nominated any contractors for this work the landlord’s actions in proceeding with the tender process was fair. The Notice of Estimates again represented communication from the landlord which demonstrated consideration of its obligations under the LTA.
  6. The resident responded on 26 September 2022 raising her concerns about paying for a lift which she didn’t use. She followed this up with further e-mails on 28 September 2022. The landlord responded to her concerns on 4 October 2022 setting out where under the lease it said the landlord was due to pay for these works. It also at this stage informed the resident she could go to the FTT if she disagreed that the service charge costs were payable. The landlord also sent a tender document breaking down the costs and offered the resident support with the payment of the service charge if necessary. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns were fair and reasonable.
  7. The resident also stated she felt the landlord did not need to replace the lift. Whilst the Ombudsman is unable to make a finding on if the landlord did need to replace the lift we can consider how the landlord communicated with the resident about this. It said in its Notice of Estimates that as the lift was over 40 years old the parts to repair it had become obsolete. The landlord told the resident it was being pro-active in its replacement to ensure it was not creating a situation where residents would be without a lift in the building for a significant period of time. The landlord’s communication with the resident about this was clear and outlined the reasons behind its intentions to replace the lift. It also advised her how she could contact the FTT if she felt she was not liable to pay this cost.
  8. The landlord undertook a meeting with the resident and her fellow leaseholders to discuss their concerns on 27 October 2022. During this it said it had given the leaseholders an opportunity to nominate contractors and had received no nominations from them. It also noted that it felt it had followed the proper section 20 process and that the quote the resident had obtained was not comparable due to not being in line with the specification provided by its contractors. The resident and her fellow leaseholders also requested that the landlord change the lift specification from a type B lift to a Type A one. The difference between the 2 lift types was how vandal-proof these were. The landlord agreed it would consider the resident’s requests. The landlord’s actions in meeting with the resident and other leaseholders in order to discuss their concerns were fair.
  9. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 January 2023 confirming that it would be proceeding with the works in line with its tender process. It said it would be proceeding with the cheapest tender. It did agree however, in line with the resident’s observations, to change the lift category it would be installing. As previously mentioned, the Ombudsman would not have the authority to determine if changing the lift category would have required it to retender the contract. The landlord’s communication with the resident following the meeting however was again fair and in line with its obligations.
  10. Following the landlord’s letter the resident wrote to the landlord on 26 January 2023. In this she expressed unhappiness that the works were still going ahead. She requested a comparison of exactly what the contractors had quoted for so she could have her own quote completed. She followed this up with the landlord on 31 January 2023 and 20 February 2023. The landlord itself acknowledged it had taken too long to respond when it acknowledged this correspondence on 21 February 2023 and apologised for the delay. It provided a significant response answering all of the individual points the resident raised.
  11. However, the landlord failed to provide the resident with the comparison she had asked for, detailing the exact costs and technical specification. Whilst it may not have been clear to the landlord exactly what documents the resident was asking for, the landlord should have been more proactive in querying that with her. As it was the landlord did not provide her with the tender documents which had this until 6 April 2023. The resident had to chase the landlord for these on a number of occasions, undoubtedly causing her additional distress and inconvenience. The delay in providing the resident with the documents she was seeking represented service failure from the landlord.
  12. When providing the tender documents, the landlord said if the resident wanted to provide a full quotation from another contractor the landlord’s technical team would assess this. It said however it would not be pausing the planned works. It said instead it would analyse the quotation and consider the resident’s claims. This represented a reasonable action from the landlord, and it was fair for it to allow her the opportunity to source her own quote. Considering it had a contract in place for works to start in May 2023 it also appears to have been reasonable for it to not pause the works at this stage.
  13. The resident continued to send queries and request further information in e-mails from 11 April 2023, 21 April 2023, 1 May 2023 and 25 May 2023. The landlord has not provided any evidence it responded to the resident’s correspondence from this period. Its evidence shows its next communication with the resident was on 19 October 2023 when it acknowledged her complaint following correspondence from the Ombudsman. The landlord’s failure to properly respond to the resident’s correspondence represented service failure, and a failure to respond to her concerns fairly. 
  14. The landlord did acknowledge in its complaint response that its service had fallen short at times, particularly in providing the resident with information and responses in a reasonable time. For this failing the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation. However, considering this occurred on at least 2 occasions and it left the resident for over 6 months without a response to her concerns this figure of compensation is not large enough.
  15. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the residents concerns about its plans for replacement of the communal lift represented service failure. Whilst it sent notices in line with its legal obligations for consultation under the LTA, the landlord failed in its communication with the resident, leaving the resident to chase it for responses on several separate occasions, one of which it took over 6 months to respond to. Whilst it did acknowledge these failings, the compensation offer it made was not large enough to address the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  16. For these failings the landlord should increase it’s offer of compensation to £200. This amount is in line with the range of figures recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in situations where there has been a failing from the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages. At stage 1 the landlord says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide its stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. If a resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process it will provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 days of receiving the escalation request. Its policy also says that on certain occasions it may need to extend these timescales, but that it will communicate this with residents if this is the case.
  2. The resident has provided a screenshot that she believes demonstrates her raising a complaint on 20 February 2023. Having considered this evidence the Ombudsman is unable to definitively say that this does demonstrate her raising a complaint. The landlord’s records do not evidence it had received this complaint. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to say that the landlord failed to respond to this appropriately.
  3. At stage 1 of the complaints procedure the landlord received the Ombudsman’s request to raise a complaint on 19 October 2023. It provided its stage 1 response 10 working days later on 2 November 2023. This was in line with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 4 November 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 December 2023. This was 20 working days after her escalation request, and again in line with the landlord’s complaint policy timescales.
  5. The landlord did however miss an opportunity to begin the complaints process at an earlier date. The resident mentioned in her e-mail on 11 April 2023 that she felt her complaint had proceeded beyond a stage 2 complaint and asked for a response within 10 working days. Whilst there’s no evidence the resident had made had a formal complaint at this stage the landlord should have recognised that the resident was seeking to have her concerns addressed via its complaints policy.
  6. The landlord’s failure to properly acknowledge this and to either raise a formal complaint or explain its complaints process to the resident represented service failure. The landlord’s failure to properly acknowledge this correspondence delayed the resident’s ability to access the complaints policy and caused her additional time and trouble.
  7. The landlord later acknowledged in its post-stage 2 correspondence that it had made errors when handling the resident’s complaint. It offered her £100 compensation for its complaint handling failings. Considering the level of its failures and the distress and inconvenience these would have caused the resident, this represents a reasonable offer of redress. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range when there has been a minor failure from the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the replacement of communal lifts.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

 

 

 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £200, inclusive of its previous offer of £100, for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her concerns about the replacement of communal lifts. 
    2. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
    3. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £100 compensation it offered for its handling of her complaint, if it has not already paid this amount.