Peabody Trust (202402094)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402094

Peabody Trust

27 August 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 handling of fence repairs and associated costs.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder and lives in a 3-bed flat, under a lease which was transferred to the resident on 17 April 2008.
3. The resident has various health conditions, including an auto-immune condition which require her regularly attending hospital appointments for infusions.
4. The complaint centres around damage caused to a fence panel between the resident’s property and her neighbour, during a storm. The fence panel collapsed into the resident’s garden on 22 January 2024.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 23 February 2024 as she had completed a repair to the fence panel herself and had sought reimbursement of £95 for the cost of this, which the landlord had refused to provide.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 11 March 2024, in which it said:
   1. It had raised a works order on 23 January 2024, the day after being notified by the resident that the fence panel had broken and fallen into her garden.
   2. On 24 January 2024, the resident advised the landlord that she had instructed her own contractor and requested reimbursement for this.
   3. Its compensation and remedies policy did not allow for it to reimburse costs when residents had not sought its written agreement and permission prior to completing the works.
   4. It had noted that the resident had concerns about 2 other fence panels and had raised a repair order for these.
7. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 April 2024 and said that there was an “urgent need to have the fence panels replaced as [the resident] was in hospital on the 29 January 2024 and [the landlord’s] workers would not have been able to carry out the supply and fitting of the fence in time”. The resident said that this would have left her property “open and vulnerable”.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 May 2024, in which it said:             
   1. It had not found any evidence that it had committed to paying the costs associated with repairing the fence panel and therefore, in line with its policy, it would not be repaying the resident for the costs she incurred.
   2. It recognised that there had been a delay in recognising the resident’s initial complaint and progressing this to its complaints procedure. It apologised for this and offered £25 compensation for the “minor failure”. It also said that it would pass feedback back to its complaints team to improve the quality of its stage 1 complaint responses.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 21 February 2025, seeking reimbursement of the costs that she incurred in completing the fence repairs.

Assessment and findings

10. The complaint centres around the proportionality of the landlord in refusing to repay the resident’s costs, that she incurred by paying a private contractor to complete repairs to the fence panel. In considering what is reasonable in the case, the Ombudsman considers relevant legislation, the landlord’s own policies and good practice.
11. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy indicates that a routine (or “next available”) repair will be completed within 28 calendar days from the date it was reported. This type of repair covers all non-emergency repairs and those not requiring specialist contractors or planned works. On this basis, the fence repair should have been completed within the 28 calendar day timeframe.
12. The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy says it will consider awards of compensation for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience. It may also consider awards for complaint handling or service failures. All of these awards having indicative ranges, depending on the severity of the failing or impact to the resident.
13. The policy also says that it “will not reimburse customers if they decide to employ a repair contractor or advocate to assist them without getting [the landlord’s] written permission and agreement beforehand.”
14. The evidence shows that the fence was damaged on 22 January 2024, following severe weather. The resident reported this to the landlord on the same day, and it raised a repair request the following day, on the 23 January 2024 and informed the resident of this.
15. On 24 January 2024, the resident advised the landlord that she could not wait for its contractor to attend and had instructed her own contractor instead. She said that she would forward the receipt for costs of £95 for repayment by the landlord. The resident said that she had instructed her own contractor as she was due to go into hospital for 3 days for treatment and did not wish to leave her garden insecure during this period.
16. While this is a reasonable assertion, there is no evidence that the resident raised these concerns with the landlord, or gave it an opportunity to undertake a temporary repair, or works to secure the garden, prior to instructing her own contractor. Similarly, no evidence has been provided that indicates that the resident notified the landlord or sought its permission and agreement before completing the works.
17. In this instance, the landlord was within its repair timescales and had acted promptly to raise the works order for repair. It had not been told of the resident’s further concerns about security, prior to the resident’s contractor completing the works. On this basis, the landlord was entitled to rely on the position it set out in its compensation and remedies policy and refuse to reimburse the resident for these costs.
18. Taking these factors together, the landlord has acted reasonably in this case and there has been no maladministration in its handling of fence repairs and the associated costs. 

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of fence repairs and the associated costs.

Recommendation

20. The landlord should continue to progress and complete the repairs to the other two defective fence panels that the resident notified it of, if it has not already done so.