Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Peabody Trust (202320114)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320114

Peabody Trust

26 February 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. concerns about the proposed dates for cyclical works.
    2. complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the proposed dates for cyclical works.
  3. The resident purchased the property in September 2022. He told us that the landlord provided documents during the conveyancing process that stated it would carry out “major external redecorations” during the 2023-24 financial year. Furthermore, he said that he had bought the property on the basis that external works would be completed within that timeframe. While the resident’s comments are noted, neither he nor the landlord has provided us with any evidence to corroborate this. Furthermore, the resident’s concern that the landlord has failed to commit to what was agreed during the sales process is a legal matter.
  4. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
  5. It is our role to determine complaints by what is fair in all the circumstances. When investigating, we seek to establish whether a landlord failed to comply with any relevant obligations, such as those set out in the resident’s occupancy agreement. We also seek to establish whether the landlord has followed its policies, procedures, and good practice.
  6. The resident’s complaint centres around a dispute over what was agreed to by the parties during the conveyancing process. We have not seen any evidence in the lease that obligates the landlord to carry out external work by a specific period. Furthermore, we have not seen any evidence that supports the resident’s comments that the landlord committed to carrying out the external decorations as part of that process. To do this would require an interpretation and decision on the intentions of the parties during the conveyancing process.  As such the assessment of fairness is linked to a binding legal decision and requires a level of expertise we are unable to provide.
  7. Additionally, in order to have compelled the landlord to take further action, the lease agreement would need to have been varied. The Ombudsman does not have the authority to alter a legally binding contract between parties. This would fall within the jurisdiction of the court after deciding on the merits of the case.  On this basis, we consider it would be fairer and more reasonable for the resident to seek a remedy through the courts.
  8. Given the above, this complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident may wish to contact an organisation such as Citizen’s Advice for help to pursue the matter. While we have not investigated what may have been discussed and agreed during the conveyancing process, we have assessed how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat in a four storey mid-terrace house, which he purchased in September 2022. The landlord is the freeholder.
  2. On 9 November 2022 the landlord sent the resident an update about the proposed external redecoration of his block. It advised him that his property was on the programme plan for April 2023 to March 2024. It added that this was “subject to change”. It said it would contact him “closer to the time” when it was due to deliver the works.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 21 July 2023. He stated that:
    1. when he bought his property, the management pack the seller supplied “clearly” stated that “major external decorations were scheduled” for the 2023/24 financial year.
    2. the landlord was “running out of time” to carry out the works.
  4. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 25 July 2023. It stated that:
    1. it had reviewed the “stock condition” information for his property and confirmed that the external decorations were due for renewal within the following 3 years.
    2. it would contact him closer to when the works were due. In the meantime, he should report all essential repairs to its customer services team.
    3. to improve the services it offered, it had delivered further staff training on record keeping and communication. It had also reminded staff of the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and up-to-date records.
  5. The resident responded to the landlord on 28 July 2023. He stated that he had it “in black and white” that the external redecorations would be done within that year. He said that it had been 5 years since they were last completed, which went against the lease. He asked it to escalate his complaint.
  6. The landlord acknowledged his escalation request on 7 August 2023. It contacted him again on 29 August 2023 to apologise for the delay in providing its stage 2 response. With the resident’s agreement, it confirmed on 30 August 2023 that it would send him its response by 8 September 2023.
  7. On 8 September 2023, it issued its stage 2 response and stated that:
    1. it aimed to complete external works on its properties within 10 years, but this was dependent on its stock condition surveys.
    2. having a “defined annual schedule for major works” allowed it to use its budget effectively. This helped it identify in advance which properties required upgrades.
    3. it had carried out a stock condition survey on his block on 28 July 2023 and agreed to bring the redecoration works forward to the 2024/25 financial year. However, this could be subject to change.
    4. there was no “stated obligation” in the lease that redecoration works must be completed every 5 years.
    5. it acknowledged that it had not responded to his complaint within its “stipulated deadline” and apologised for the delay.
    6. it offered him £100 compensation, which it broke down as:
      1. £50 for time, trouble and inconvenience caused.
      2. £50 for poor complaint handling.
  8. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 9 September 2023. He said that:
    1. the landlord had failed to carry out the external work it had promised during the conveyancing process to carry out.
    2. he had relied on the landlord’s intentions to carry out the work when he purchased the property.
    3. he felt the landlord’s decision not to carry out the work was “seriously affecting” his property value.
    4. he wanted the work to be completed during the 2024/2025 financial year.
  9. On 31 January 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that his property was on its cyclical works programme for 2024/25. It wrote to him again on 5 June 2024 to say it was hoping to issue section 20 notices to all the leaseholders in his block in July 2024. On 18 February 2025 the landlord confirmed to us that the works were still its 2024/25 cyclical works programme.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy set out its 2 stage formal complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days and responds to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It has a 20 working day timescale for issuing stage 2 responses. If it needs more time to respond, it will provide an explanation to the resident, containing a clear revised timeframe for when it will respond. If an extension beyond 20 working days is required, this should be agreed by both parties. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. Its Compensation and Remedies Policy awards between £1 and £650 in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience caused to a resident due to failures in service provision. The amount it calculates depends on the severity of failure and level of impact on the resident. It also awards between £25 and £300 in recognition of poor complaint handling, depending on the extent of its failings.

Complaint handling

  1. The evidence shows that the resident escalated his complaint on 28 July 2023, and the landlord acknowledged it on 7 August 2023. This was 7 working days later that the timescale as set out both in its policy and the Code. Although the delay was not excessive, it was a departure from its policy and the Code. The landlord should ensure it acknowledges all complaints in a timely manner to prevent causing avoidable frustration to the resident. This would also help restore residents’ confidence in the services it provides.
  2. The landlord took 31 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This was over the initial 20 working days its policy allows. However, the records show the landlord contacted the resident on 29 and 30 August 2023 to agree him a new timescale with him. This was appropriate and in line with its policy and the Code.
  3. The Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. In his stage 1 complaint, the resident told it that, when he was buying his property, the landlord had provided him with a seller’s management pack. He stated that this had advised him external redecoration works would be carried out in the 2023/24 financial year. In its response, the landlord told him that the works were due within the following 3 years. However, it did not address the resident’s concerns about the information he was given during the sale, or whether an error had been made. This was a failure to engage with the complaint in a meaningful way.
  4. Furthermore, there is no evidence it had considered seeking legal advice to help it address this part of the complaint and ascertain the legal position regarding the resident’s comments. The landlord’s failure to properly investigate and respond to this aspect of the resident’s complaint caused ongoing confusion about the landlord’s position on the information he was given when he bought the property. That the landlord did not address this aspect of the complaint in either its stage 1 or 2 responses was a failing and amounts to maladministration.
  5. It is noted that the landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response that it had delivered staff training on record keeping and communication. It added that it had also reminded staff of the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and up-to-date records. It is appropriate for landlords to outline the learning it has taken from complaint outcomes in its responses. However, in this case the landlord did not provide any context within which it had taken the abovementioned actions. It did not explain in its response what failings it had identified which led it to provide the staff training. This will have caused confusion around why it had taken those actions, and come across as arbitrary.
  6. When giving information on specific actions it has taken following complaint outcomes, the landlord should ensure it always clearly links them to the failings it has identified during its investigation. That the landlord mentioned it had delivered staff training on record keeping and communication in its response without giving any context was a further failing.
  7. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
  8. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to provide its response within 20 working days. It apologised for the delay and offered the resident £100 in recognition of its poor complaint handling, and the time, trouble and inconvenience caused. The landlord’s attempts at putting things right are acknowledged. However, its response failed to address the resident’s concerns around the information it had given him during the sales process. This was a serious omission and would have caused him ongoing confusion and uncertainty. If it felt it was unable to give the resident an answer, it should have sought legal advice or signposted him to seek legal advice. For this reason the Ombudsman cannot consider the landlord’s offer to be reasonable and will therefore order further redress to put things right.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the proposed dates for cyclical works is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

 Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failures identified in this report, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies.
    2. Pay the resident £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This replaces the offer of £100 it made in its stage 2 response.
    3. Provide the resident with a clear written explanation of the information he said it had given him during the sales process with regard to external redecoration. The landlord may have to seek legal advice in order to state its position on the matter. It should also signpost him to relevant services where he can obtain appropriate advice and support.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must review its complaint training with emphasis on addressing all aspects of a complaint, and ensuring the learning and actions it outlines in its responses are linked to specific outcomes, and the relevant failings it has identified. The landlord to provide evidence it has carried out the review within 8 weeks of receiving this report.