Peabody Trust (202418742)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418742

Peabody Trust

19 September 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 was about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s communication regarding a fire safety inspection.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident was a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord. The landlord was the lessee of the freeholder (“F”) of the building in which the resident’s property was situated. The property was managed by a managing agent (“MA”).
3. It was not disputed that F and the leaseholder had obligations regarding the fire safety of the flat doors. Leaseholders have an obligation that their front entrance doors be fire-rated. “Responsible persons” had a duty to undertake annual checks of all flat entrance doors in buildings over 11 meters high. It was not disputed that F was the relevant responsible person.
4. On 8 April 2024 the resident wrote as a complaint that a housing officer (the “HO”) of the landlord rather than the freeholder or its managing agent had written to him regarding giving access for a fire door inspection. His grounds for the complaint included that the body responsible for fire safety was F and not the landlord. He wanted the HO to cease “interfering” in F’s operation of the estate. He paid F £4,500 a year to manage the estate. The resident stated that the law obligated F and its MA to directly communicate with leaseholders and residents. The LL should not be doing anything that was F’s or its MA’s obligation.
5. On 18 April 2024 the resident wrote again to the landlord that it had not logged his communication of 8 April 2024 as a complaint in accordance with its policy. His view was that his email did not fit within the landlord’s policy examples of a “first time enquiry” and so should have been considered a complaint.
6. On 10 May 2024 the landlord wrote back and said his comments were noted and thanked him for providing access for the inspection of the flat entrance door.
7. On 15 May 2024 the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response as follows:
   1. The resident had obligations under his lease to the landlord, and the landlord had obligations to F under its own lease.
   2. The resident had provided access, and no further inspection was necessary.
   3. It had assumed that the issue had been resolved as the resident had provided access.
   4. It considered this to be a misunderstanding rather than a service failure.
8. On 30 May 2024 the resident asked to escalate his complaint on the following grounds:
   1. His communication was sent as a complaint, and there was no request for a service. The communication had expressed dissatisfaction with the HO’s email of April 2024. It took him to make a further complaint for the landlord to treat it as such.
   2. His complaint was not about giving access but about the email itself.
   3. It was F who was responsible for fire safety not the landlord.
   4. He wanted the landlord to be more cautious about doing as F asked. The landlord, in August 2023, had asked residents not to contact F or the MA whereas another email of 20 March 2023 had told residents they should contact F or the MA. He considered that F and MA had treated the shared ownership leaseholders unfairly in the past, in contrast to private residents. He and other residents had worked hard to get F and the MA to communicate directly with the residents.
9. On 16 July 2024 the landlord replied with its Stage 2 as follows:
   1. It apologised for the delays and frustrations the resident had experienced.
   2. It repeated its position set out in its Stage 1 response.
   3. Although it had no management responsibilities for the common parts, it was entitled to request access in order to carry out its legal responsibilities and to facilitate access.
   4. The landlord’s involvement was to ensure safety compliance as required by the MA.
   5. It did not uphold the complaint.
   6. It offered £150 for its complaint handling.
10. The resident wrote back stating the landlord had not addressed the contradiction between the landlord’s emails of 20 March 2023 and that of 25 August 2023. On 24 July 2024, the landlord replied that it was “clear” that there was “not one route of communication” from the MA. The landlord would continue to send communications, but only where they related to its responsibilities as his landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that he was unhappy the landlord had written to him about a fire safety inspection

11. The landlord’s explanation was reasonable that it had obligations under its lease with F and the resident had obligations to the landlord under his lease.
12. Under the resident’s lease, the resident must:
    1. allow access to the landlord (and its agents) to look at the condition of the property.
    2. comply with any regulations from the landlord and superior landlord .. for the safety of the building and so the landlord could carry out its obligations under the lease or its lease with F.
13. The flat door was part of the property let by the landlord to the resident.
14. Also under the resident’s lease, the landlord:
    1. must comply with the obligations in its lease with F and to take reasonable steps to ensure F and the MA and G complied with theirs.
    2. had the right to enter the property to inspect the condition of the flat.
15. Under the lease between F, MA, and the landlord, the landlord had an obligation to give access for F, MA, and its agents to view the condition of the property.
16. The main purpose of the landlord’s letter 8 April 2024 was to ensure access to inspect the fire doors. It was not disputed that fire safety was of great importance. While the ultimate responsibility under the fire safety legislation was that of F, the landlord and the MA had a role to play to ensure fire safety. The landlord also had an obligation to give access to the property to F and MA and the resident had an obligation to the landlord to give access.
17. The resident’s request for escalation explained his underlying concern, that he had achieved, and wished to retain, direct communication with F and its MA. We understand that the resident had had difficulty in his communication with F and MA. However, the landlord was entitled to continue communicating with the resident as it saw fit where it had obligations to comply with. Even if there was no specific obligation it was complying with, there was nothing to prevent the landlord reasonably writing to residents where it had good management reasons to do so, for example, as regards fire safety. Moreover, since the landlord had an obligation to enforce F’s covenants, there may be good reason for the landlord to be kept informed of any issues arising in the building. This would not prevent continued direct communication with F and its MA. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord said it would continue to send communications, but only where they related to its responsibilities as the resident’s landlord.
18. The landlord did not address the contradiction between its earlier emails. The landlord’s email of 20 March 2023 directed the resident to the MA in relation to parking queries. If the MA did not reply, the resident could then raise a complaint with the MA The landlord’s email of 25 August 2023, however, directed the resident to itself, whether in relation to the property or building. It asked the resident not to contact the MA. This was confusing. The landlord should ensure that it is clear and does not provide contradictory advice. While frustrating for the resident, we do not find this had a significant impact on the resident but we will make a recommendation.
19. On 22 December 2023, the MA wrote to the residents stating that service charge queries could go to the landlord who would refer them to the MA. It acknowledged that the landlord had not forwarded its messages to residents in a timely manner and was working to resolve this. It then set out communication routes. It said residents should write to the MA about issues including “fire.. updates restricted to updates on the building only”. Service charge queries should go to the landlord. The arrangements were complex. However, given the request for access was not an “update”, we did not think writing to the resident simply regarding access for a fire door inspection of the property (which issue concerned both fire safety and the leased flat itself) was in contradiction with this protocol. While F was responsible for fire safety, the front door fell within the responsibility of the landlord’s, and the leaseholder’s responsibility to the landlord. In any event, the communication arrangement was so that the resident knew who to contact rather than a restriction on the landlord.
20. In our view, it was reasonable that the landlord wrote to the resident regarding access, given the importance of the issue and given the resident’s obligation owed to the landlord to allow access and the landlord’s own obligation to give access to the property to F and the MA. The resident has told us of a wider background to the complaint, which his request for escalation partly alluded to. However, these issues fell outside this particular complaint. While we see the resident’s point and understand his frustration about communication with F and its MA, we did not see evidence of the landlord’s email of 8 April 2024 actually impeded communication between him and F and its MA. In all of the circumstances, we find no maladministration in relation to the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

21. The landlord acknowledged that it had made an error in treating the resident’s email of 8 April 2024 as an enquiry rather than a complaint. Not every email sent though a complaints webform will be an expression of dissatisfaction rather than an enquiry. The list of its policy examples were not exhaustive. However, in our view, it was unreasonable that the landlord considered the message an enquiry or a request for a service. This is because the resident stated he was unhappy about receiving the landlord’s letter. While how the landlord answered it did not make a difference to the outcome, it made a difference to the process and added to the resident’s frustration.
22. The delays in responding to the resident were inappropriate as they did not comply with the landlord’s policy. In particular, the Stage 2 response was several weeks late. The response was, in the main, the same as its Stage 1 response so the reasons for the delay were not clear.
23. However, the landlord, in its Stage 2 response, apologised for the frustrations and delays the resident had experienced and offered its maximum compensation under its policy. This was reasonable. We consider the apology and the offer of compensation of £150 to be reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

24. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that he was unhappy the landlord had written to him about a fire safety inspection.
25. In accordance with Paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling and satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

26. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
    1. The landlord should confirm that any communication about issues in the communal parts of the property should be between the resident and F/MA, unless there is good reason to do otherwise, such as the landlord complying with its legal obligations to F.
    2. The landlord should pay the resident the sum of £150 in accordance with its Stage 2 response if it has not done so already.
27. The landlord should feedback to the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.