Peabody Trust (202338083)

Background

1. The resident wanted the landlord to replace the front door in 2024. He was concerned the door was insecure. The landlord inspected, did some repairs, and decided that it was in a serviceable condition. The resident disagreed and complained to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s requests for a new front door.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for a new front door.
4. We found there was a reasonable offer of redress made by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord promptly inspected the door in January 2024. Its contractor said the door was in a serviceable condition. The landlord agreed to conduct a further inspection as part of its resolution of the resident’s complaint. It did not follow through with this commitment and the failure caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
6. The landlord delayed unreasonably responding to the resident’s complaints. However, it acknowledged its failings and made a reasonable offer of redress to put things right.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The landlord’s repair policy says that it will attend all routine repairs within 28 calendar days and major repairs within 60 calendar days. It is common practice in the sector to complete other planned works on cyclical maintenance schedules.
8. The resident reported problems with his front door on 10 January 2024. The landlord attended 6 calendar days later on 16 January 2024. This was within the timescales set out in its policy.
9. The landlord’s contractor recorded that the door was in a fair condition. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice and guidance of its contractors and the findings from its inspections. Therefore, it was fair to reiterate these findings in its stage 1 response in April 2024.
10. The landlord’s response at stage 2 in August 2024 was more resolution focused. It showed that it took the resident’s concerns seriously and agreed to conduct a further inspection. Although it was positive that the landlord planned to inspect the door, it missed the opportunity to agree a date to do so. Had it provided a date for the inspection, it could have prevented the drift that occurred later in 2024 and 2025. This was an oversight that caused the resident additional time and trouble.
11. The records show the landlord conducted repairs to the door on 14 November 2024. This was 86 calendar days after its stage 2 response on 20 August 2024. This is outside the 28 calendar days for routine repairs. This was an unreasonable delay to follow through with its commitments set out in its stage 2 response.
12. The landlord’s records are unclear if it sent a supervisor to inspect the door as agreed in its August 2024 complaint response. They show that its contractor visited in March 2025 and recommended the landlord replace the front door and frame. It then took around 9 months to replace the door. Overall, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord reviewing whether the door required renewal.
13. We found service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for a new front door. It was reasonable to rely on the advice of its contractor in January 2024. It was fair to offer a new inspection in its stage 2 response and uphold its original decision. However, it did not follow through with these offers in a timely manner. The delays contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.

14. The landlord’s complaint handling policy complies with our Complaint Handling Code.
15. It is important that the landlord maintains the commitments set out in its policy and procedures. Its complaint responses at stage 1 and 2 were issued outside of its agreed timescales.
16. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for failing to issue its responses at both stage 1 and 2 within its timescales. Its response at stage 2 accurately addressed the timeline and the resident’s additional time and trouble seeking help from us to pursue his complaints. There were delays totalling around 5 months.
17. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for its handling of the complaint. It apologised for its failings. Its offer of £100 compensation is within a range that our Guidance on Remedies recommends where a landlord’s failings had an adverse impact on the resident as was the case here.

Learning

18. The landlord should ensure that it follows through with any commitments it makes in its complaint responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord should ensure that it keeps clear and accurate records of its inspections and the outcome. In this case, there were few records that show the landlord had proper oversight of the repairs and this contributed to the delays.

Communication

20. The landlord could have agreed a follow up date to its stage 2 response to confirm the actions were complete.