From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Peabody Trust (202419837)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419837

Peabody Trust

22 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 landlords handling of the resident’s reports regarding:
    1. The conduct of grounds maintenance contractors.
    2. Cleaning of communal areas.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in April 2005. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. The landlord has a record that the resident has mobility issues.
  2. On 23 May 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to complain about the grounds maintenance service. He said the contractor had parked their van in such a way as to block him from being able to park in his parking bay, had refused to move the van, and had been rude and disrespectful. As a result he had to park far from his home. He also said prior to that day’s visit there had been no grounds maintenance for 6 weeks.
  3. The landlord responded on 28 May 2024. It said it would raise the reported parking issue with the contractor, and apologised for this. It said its records did not indicate a gap of 6 weeks, but that, due to application of “weed and feed, the grass was left for a few visits to maximise effect.”
  4. On 27 June 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to complain that the landlord had not logged 2 of his complaints as formal complaints:
    1. His 23 May 2024 complaint about the grounds maintenance contractor’s parking and the alleged altercation. He said the contractor was verbally abusive, and having to park far away from the building impacted him, as he walks with crutches due to physical health conditions.
    2. On 26 June 2024 he telephoned the landlord’s customer service centre to complain about the cleaning of communal areas. The person he spoke to was rude, and said they would log a service request rather than a complaint. His complaint was that the standard of the cleaning had deteriorated in the last couple of months, and was now done on a Wednesday instead of a Friday. He also said he had complained about the cleaning before but the landlord had ignored him.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 18 July 2024. It said there was no evidence to support the resident’s allegations about the grounds maintenance contractor, so it could take no further action. On the same day the resident said he wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 19 August 2024. It said:
    1. It carried out quarterly cleaning inspections, and had carried out an inspection in response to the resident’s concerns. It had found the cleaning to be “gold standard.” Its contractors were appropriately certified. The change of cleaning day from Friday to Wednesday would not affect the standard of the cleaning.
    2. The grounds maintenance contractor denied that any altercation had taken place with the resident regarding parking. However, the landlord agreed the contractor’s parking would have caused difficulty for the resident, and apologised for this. It offered £25 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
    3. The stage 1 response did not meet the landlord’s standards and the relevant staff member had been asked to follow its complaint guide in future. It offered £25 compensation for this.
  7. On 20 August 2024 the resident contacted this Service and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said the landlord was not responsive to him, and he thought it “covered up” for contractors. He said it did not follow its complaints procedure, and as a result of its failings he had experienced stress. He wanted financial compensation for this.

Assessment and findings

  1. At the time of the events complained about the landlord worked with contractors to deliver its grounds maintenance and communal area cleaning services. For clarity, this report refers to the landlord’s contractors as contractors. It should however be noted that even when using contractors, the landlord retains its obligations and responsibilities as a landlord.

Grounds maintenance contractor

  1. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s 23 May 2024 email was appropriate. It replied promptly, on 28 May 2024. It provided the resident with copies of work sheets from the contractor, evidencing there had not been a 6 week gap between visits. It explained the grass had not been mown for “a few visits” to maximise the effectiveness of “weed and feed” treatment. It agreed to raise the reported parking issues with the contractor. It therefore provided initial reassurance and demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
  2. On 29 May 2024 the landlord asked the grounds maintenance contractor to interview the 2 operatives who attended on 23 May 2024, regarding the resident’s report about parking and the alleged altercation. This was appropriate. On 31 May 2024 the contractor provided a written statement from one of the operatives. The statement acknowledged a car had driven into the car park after them, but had then driven away again. However, the operative said they had had no interaction or contact with the resident on that day.
  3. The stage 1 response, dated 18 July 2024, informed the resident that the landlord had carried out internal investigations with the contractor and the Estate Service Team, but found no evidence of unprofessional conduct by the contractor. In the absence of any independent witnesses, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the statement of its contractor, that no altercation had taken place. Although the resident provided photographs of the contractor’s van on 24 July 2024, there is no evidence these were provided prior to this date. We therefore cannot find that the landlord was unreasonable to say there was no evidence of unprofessional conduct at the point the stage 1 response was issued.
  4. After the resident provided the photographs on 24 July 2024, the landlord’s internal correspondence on 6 August 2024 shows it agreed these showed the contractor’s van was blocking the front entrance and blocking other cars from parking. It acknowledged and apologised for this in its 19 August 2024 stage 2 response, and informed the resident it would ask the contractor to park more considerately in future. It offered £25 compensation for the inconvenience caused. This was reasonable and proportionate. In the absence of any independent witnesses to the alleged altercation between the contractor and the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to say it could not take any further action in relation to this part of the complaint.
  5. Considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the grounds maintenance contractor overall, it acknowledged and apologised for the contractor’s parking once it had evidence of this, and made a proportionate offer of compensation. There is no independent evidence regarding the allegation of rudeness and verbal abuse. The landlord provided evidence to show the contractor had been attending regularly, and explained why the grass had not been cut. There is therefore insufficient evidence to merit a finding that there was service failure or maladministration in relation to this element of the complaint.

Cleaning

  1. The evidence provided by the landlord shows that its area housing manager carried out quarterly inspections of the estate, and that the cleaning services manager carried out additional “ad hoc” inspections of the cleaning standard. The cleaning services manager carried out inspections on 18 July 2024 and 8 August 2024, following the resident’s stated concerns. This was appropriate. On these occasions the cleaning was found to be of a “gold standard.”
  2. The stage 2 response also provided reassurance that the cleaning contractor was appropriately certified, used approved products, and that the change of cleaning day would not affect the standard of cleaning. This was appropriate.
  3. The evidence shows the cleaning day was changed from Friday to Wednesday so that all of the landlord’s estates in the area could be cleaned by the cleaning contractor on the same day. This was reasonable, and the landlord was not obliged to provide the cleaning service on any particular day. However, the evidence indicates an officer had been asked to inform residents about the change of day, but this was not done. The landlord has acknowledged it did not appropriately manage the resident’s expectations in relation to this. However, this oversight is insufficient to merit a finding that there was service failure or maladministration in relation to this element of the complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, our employees or those acting on our behalf.” The policy says “a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ in order for a complaint to be identified, registered and treated as such.”
  2. The policy says the landlord will log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord will log and acknowledge requests to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the process within 5 working days, and provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
  3. The resident’s 27 June 2024 complaint said:
    1. The landlord had not logged and acknowledged his 23 May 2024 complaint about the grounds maintenance contractor.
    2. He had tried to complain about the cleaning by phone on 26 June 2024, but the person he spoke to was rude and logged the matter as a service request, not a complaint.
    3. He had complained about the quality of the cleaning before the team change, but the landlord had ignored him.
  4. While the evidence regarding the reported 26 June 2024 phone call, and earlier complaints about cleaning is unclear, the evidence does show the landlord did not log and acknowledge the resident’s 23 May 2024 complaint about the grounds maintenance contractor within 5 working days. The resident had to repeat his complaint on 27 June 2024 before the landlord logged and acknowledged the complaint, on 4 July 2024. This was poor complaint handling.
  5. The Housing Ombudsman Service Complaints Handling Code says when a complaint is logged, or escalated to stage 2, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. However, the landlord did not define the complaint and outcome sought within its 4 July 2024 acknowledgement email.
  6. The 18 July 2024 stage 1 response was provided 10 working days after acknowledgement of the complaint, as required by the policy. However, as a result of the delay logging and acknowledging the complaint, the resident had to wait 29 working days from his first complaint about the grounds maintenance contractor, until he received a response.
  7. Furthermore, the landlord did not respond to all elements of the resident’s complaint within the stage 1 response, as it only provided a response regarding the grounds maintenance, not the cleaning. This meant the resident had to wait 37 working days from his 27 June 2024 complaint about cleaning until he received a response. Had the landlord defined the complaint within its acknowledgement email this failing may have been avoided.
  8. The landlord’s poor complaint handling at stage 1 contributed to the resident’s perception that it was not responsive to his concerns, and “covered up” for its contractors.
  9. The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 18 July 2024. The landlord logged and acknowledged this on 22 July 2024, 2 working days later. It appropriately defined the complaint and outcome sought, and offered the resident the opportunity to discuss the complaint by phone. The stage 2 response was provided 20 working days later. The response gave a detailed account of the investigations carried out, and clear explanations for the landlord’s position.
  10. Considering the landlord’s complaint handling overall, while its handling at stage 2 was appropriate, a number of failings at stage 1 have been identified:
    1. It did not log and acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days of the resident’s 23 May 2024 correspondence. As a result the resident had to wait 29 working days from his first complaint about the grounds maintenance contractors, until he received a response.
    2. It did not define the complaint and outcome sought at stage 1.
    3. It did not respond to all elements of the complaint at stage 1. This meant the resident had to wait 37 working days from his 27 June 2024 complaint about cleaning until he received a response.
  11. The landlord acknowledged within its stage 2 response that the format of stage 1 response did not meet its standards, apologised for this, and offered £25 compensation. However, it did not acknowledge or provide redress for its delay in logging and acknowledging the complaint, or its failure to respond to both elements of the complaint at stage 1. The landlord therefore has not provided reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures. As a result, and taking into account resident’s consequent perception that the landlord was not responsive to his concerns, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure in relation to complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to apologise and pay compensation of £100.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding conduct of grounds maintenance contractors.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding cleaning of communal areas.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A senior officer of the landlord must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. The landlord must directly pay the resident compensation of £100 in relation to complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that relevant staff involved in this case undertake complaint handling learning from our Centre for Learning ( https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/complaint-handling/).
  2. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £25 compensation offered in relation to the inconvenience caused by the grounds maintenance contractor’s parking on 23 May 2024.