Peabody Trust (202409860)

Background

1. The property is a flat in a 4-storey, purpose-built block. The landlord has confirmed that it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. In February 2023 the landlord carried out a fire risk assessment (FRA) of the resident’s block and one of the key findings in the report was that the landlord should arrange an appraisal of the external walls to ensure the timber cladding façade would adequately resist the spread of fire. The landlord provided the resident with a copy of the FRA however it could not give a date for an investigation of the external walls.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to carry out a fire risk appraisal of the external walls of his block and issue an external wall system form (EWS1).
3. We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for it to carry out a fire risk appraisal of the external walls of his block and issue an EWS1.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and lacked transparency. There were delays in replying to his correspondence and in sending him the EWS1 form. Also, it did not fully explain its decision to recommission the investigation of his block when it sent him a copy of the EWS1.
7. There were various complaint handling failures, including delays in the landlord acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaints.

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.

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.

8. In December 2019 the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), the Building Societies Association and UK Finance agreed a new industry-wide valuation process to help people buy and sell homes and re-mortgage in buildings where cladding was present. They introduced form EWS1, which is a way for a building owner to confirm to lenders and valuers that an external wall system on residential buildings has been assessed for safety by a suitable expert, in line with Government guidance and legislation.
9. The RICS guidance on the EWS1 process makes it clear that not every building will require an EWS1 form. This guidance includes criteria to help decide whether a particular building should need an EWS1 form. The criteria take into consideration the height of the building, the type of cladding and (in some circumstances) how much of it there is on the building. For example, for buildings of 4-storeys or under, an EWS1 form should only be required where there are specific types of panels on the building. The EWS1 form is not a legal requirement and the RICS guidance states that it is not a safety certificate.
10. The landlord’s website says: “We are committed to supporting our leaseholders, so we have a full investigation and remediation programme that ensures all our buildings are safe and EWS1 forms are issued where required under current RICS criteria”.
11. In response to an email sent by the landlord on 20 February 2024, the resident emailed the landlord on the same day to ask for clarification regarding whether an EWS1 was needed for his block as he was looking to sell the property in the near future. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to his email until 9 April 2024 after he had written to the landlord on 8 April 2024 requesting a response. It was unreasonable that the landlord had taken 7 weeks to reply to the resident, particularly as he had said he was looking to sell his property in the near future and needed clarification about the EWS1. The delay meant the resident experienced time and trouble chasing the landlord for a reply.
12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 and 10 April 2024 and said its fire remediation team had used criteria, such as the height of buildings and type of cladding used, to develop a 3-year programme to investigate its blocks. It said that taller buildings with higher risk profiles would take priority over lower height, lower risk buildings. It said it expected to complete all blocks that fell within the Government’s building safety guidance by the end of 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that its fire remediation team was prioritising its programme based on the Government’s building safety guidance. However, it was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it did not provide clear information on whether the resident’s block fell within the Government’s building safety guidance.
13. The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 April 2024 and 8 May 2024 to say that a potential buyer for his flat had requested confirmation that the landlord had carried out a fire risk appraisal into the external walls. The resident said he had given the buyer’s lender a copy of the latest fire risk assessment carried out on the block, which had said that the landlord should carry out the external wall appraisal. The lender had said that the sale could not proceed until this appraisal had been done. The landlord replied on 16 May 2024, which was nearly a month after the resident’s email of 18 April 2024. The delay in responding was unreasonable as the resident had said he had a prospective buyer for his flat and the buyer’s lender was requesting information regarding the block.
14. The landlord advised the resident on 16 May 2024 that a member of its fire remediation team would contact him within 5 working days, however, this did not happen and this prompted the resident to chase the landlord on 4 June 2024 and to contact us on 10 June 2024. It was unreasonable that the landlord had failed to contact the resident within the timescale it had given him. This led to him experiencing further time, trouble and frustration in chasing the landlord.
15. The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident on 11 July 2024 and confirmed that it did not yet have a date for when it would investigate the external wall system. It said that it was using the Government’s fire risk assessment prioritisation tool to ensure that higher risk buildings were prioritised for intrusive investigations. The Government’s website says that there is limited capacity in terms of competent professionals who can conduct fire risk appraisals of the external walls and encourages landlords to use its prioritisation tool to ensure that landlords are focussing on buildings where there may be greater fire safety concerns. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it was using the prioritisation tool to decide the order in which buildings would be investigated.
16. As part of its stage 1 reply the landlord said the resident could request a deed of certificate to show lenders how the resident might qualify for protections under the Building Safety Act. It also attached a ‘letter of comfort’ which he could give to potential buyers setting out the landlord’s position regarding the investigation of the block. As the landlord had said it could not give a timescale for the investigation of the block, it was reasonable that it attempted to provide the resident with some information that might be useful to potential buyers.
17. The landlord’s records show it received the report for the fire risk appraisal of the external walls and the EWS1 on 3 October 2024 and it sent the resident a copy of the EWS1 form on 1 April 2025. It was unreasonable that the landlord had been in possession of the EWS1 for 6 months before sending the resident a copy of this form because it was aware that he had been requesting the EWS1 since February 2024.
18. In its stage 2 reply dated 27 January 2025 the landlord confirmed that the resident’s block had been investigated and said it had requested a peer review of the results to ensure thoroughness. In February 2025, the landlord’s website said that following reports of concerns about the company that had investigated the resident’s block and produced the EWS1, some lenders were rejecting EWS1 forms issued by them. The website added that the landlord was therefore recommissioning certificates where appropriate. However, the landlord did not advise the resident of this when it sent him the EWS1. In our view, this was unreasonable as the landlord was aware there were concerns about the company that had produced the EWS1.
19. We would expect the landlord to have been transparent and open with the resident and advised him that the EWS1 might be rejected by lenders and therefore it was recommissioning certificates where appropriate. The lack of transparency by the landlord resulted in the resident contacting us on 2 April 2025 to express his concerns about the EWS1 because he said it had been produced by a company that was under investigation by the Institute of Fire Engineers. He also contacted his MP on 4 April 2025 about the same concerns.
20. It was not until a month later on 9 May 2025 that the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP to confirm it had recommissioned the review of the resident’s building to verify the findings of the company. The lack of information from the landlord about the EWS1 added to the resident’s frustration, which he expressed to the landlord on 2 July 2025 by saying he had still not been issued with a valid EWS1.
21. One of the resident’s main concerns was that the FRA report produced in February 2023 concluded that the risk to life from fire at the premises was “substantial” and that “the consequences for life safety in the event of fire would be…extreme harm”. It went on to say that the landlord should take urgent action. We understand the resident’s concerns based on the wording in the report. However, we do not have the expertise to decide whether the resident’s block should have been prioritised for works on the basis of the FRA compared to the landlord’s other blocks.
22. Overall, we have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to carry out a fire risk appraisal of the external walls of his block and issue an EWS1 because:
    1. There were delays in the landlord replying to the resident’s emails sent in February, April and May 2024.
    2. It failed to contact him within the 5-working day timescale confirmed to him on 16 May 2024.
    3. There was a delay of 6 months between the landlord receiving the EWS1 on 3 October 2024 and sending the resident a copy on 1 April 2025.
    4. When it sent the resident a copy of the EWS1, it did not advise him that the EWS1 might be rejected by some lenders and it was recommissioning the certificates where appropriate.
23. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £200 to put things right in terms of the time, trouble, inconvenience and frustration experienced by the resident. The sum ordered reflects the delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s communications, the delay in sending him the EWS1 and the frustration caused by its lack of transparency. The sum is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where we have found maladministration and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right. In this case, the landlord did not use its complaints process to acknowledge its failings and offer to put things rights.
24. The resident has advised us that the landlord has still not told him when the new investigation of his block will take place. In May 2021 we published a spotlight report on dealing with cladding complaints. The report found that most landlords are taking a risk-based approach to inspections and while rational, these plans do not appear to adequately consider the broader implications for all residents, especially those living in buildings below 18m, which is the case here.
25. We believe that good communications on this subject are vital and that landlords should be open and transparent about their long-term plans. This includes giving a clear plan with timescales to all residents. In this case, we recognise that the landlord is reliant on third-party fire engineers to schedule the external wall appraisals. However, given the time the resident has waited for an EWS1 that he can give to lenders, we consider it reasonable for the landlord to work with the fire engineers to provide the resident with indicative timescales for investigating his block and producing a new EWS1. We have therefore included an order for the landlord to provide the resident with this information.

26. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages: stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt and responded to within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days of the escalation request and responses are sent within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. At both stages of the process, the timescale for responding may be extended as long as the landlord provides an explanation to the resident and a timeframe for when the response will be sent. The extension should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
27. The resident completed an online complaints form on 8 May 2024 and said he was unhappy about the poor customer service he had received. The landlord’s records show that it did not log this as a complaint but was instead dealt with it as a ‘service recover case’. It was inappropriate that the landlord had not logged a stage 1 complaint as the resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the service he had received. The landlord’s actions were not in line with its complaints policy or with our Complaint Handling Code.
28. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 4 June 2024 and the landlord sent a stage 1 acknowledgement on 21 June 2024. The landlord sent the acknowledgement 13 working days after the resident’s email of 4 June 2024. The time taken to acknowledge the complaint was inappropriate as it was not in line with the landlord’s policy.
29. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 11 July 2024, which was 14 working days after sending the acknowledgement. The time taken for the landlord to respond was inappropriate as it was not in line with its policy.
30. The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 July 2024 and said he was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. The landlord did not log this as a stage 2 complaint, which was inappropriate and not in line with its policy as the resident had clearly stated that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response.
31. The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 November 2024 and requested a stage 2 response. The landlord sent an acknowledgement on 6 December 2024, which was 18 working days later. The time taken by the landlord to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint was not in line with its policy and was therefore inappropriate.
32. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 27 January 2025, which was 33 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The time taken for the landlord to respond was not in line with its policy and was therefore inappropriate.
33. In summary, we found the following failings in the landlord’s complaints handling:
    1. It did not log the resident’s online form dated 8 May 2024 as a stage 1 complaint.
    2. After logging the stage 1 complaint on 4 June 2024, the landlord delayed sending an acknowledgement.
    3. There was a delay in sending the stage 1 response after it had acknowledged the complaint.
    4. It did not log the resident’s email of 19 July 2024 as a stage 2 complaint.
    5. After logging the stage 2 complaint on 12 November 2024, the landlord delayed sending an acknowledgement.
    6. There was a delay in sending the stage 2 response after it had acknowledged the complaint
34. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delay in sending the stage 2 reply and offered compensation of £100. However, it did not acknowledge the other complaint handling failures we have found. Given the number of failures we have identified, we do not consider the redress offered by the landlord was sufficient to put things right. The resident experienced additional time, trouble and inconvenience chasing the landlord for responses. We have made a finding of service failure because although the landlord made an offer of compensation, it was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £100, which is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where we have found service failure.

Learning

Communication

35. We have found that the landlord’s communication in responding to the resident’s request for a fire risk appraisal and an EWS1 was poor. As stated in our spotlight report of May 2021, effective communication is vital and is especially important given the level of distress an absence of information can cause for residents in these circumstances. We therefore expect landlords to be proactive – providing residents with regular and accurate information relating to fire safety issues. The landlord should therefore use our findings to consider how it can improve communications in relation to carrying out fire risk appraisals and issuing EWS1 forms.