Peabody Trust (202450052)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202450052 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Peabody Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
23 January 2026 |
Background
1. The property is a 1-bedroom flat and the resident requested a transfer to a 2-bedroom property on the same estate. She said the landlord should have allocated her a 2-bedroom flat when she was nominated by her local council in 2022 as she was pregnant at the time. The landlord advised us that it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, however, she informed the landlord in her complaint that she was living with anxiety and clinical depression.
What the complaint is about
2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
- The resident’s concerns about the size of property it allocated to her and the information it gave to her at the viewing.
- The resident’s request to be transferred to a 2-bedroom property on the same estate.
3. We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the size of property it allocated to her and the information it gave to her at the viewing.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be transferred to a 2-bedroom property on the same estate.
6. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
7. It was reasonable for the landlord to have offered the resident a 1-bedroom property after her local council nominated her. It was also reasonable for it to have advised her that the provisions within its rehousing policy did not apply to her at the time she was nominated. However, the landlord did not respond to some of the queries she raised before and during the complaints process.
8. The landlord gave the resident appropriate advice in line with its Rehousing Policy about her request to transfer, it helped her to register for a transfer, sent her a medical form so she could apply for medical priority and responded clearly to her request for a management transfer.
9. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints within appropriate timescales. However, it apologised for this and offered reasonable financial 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.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 20 February 2026 |
|
|
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £75 for the time and trouble caused by its response to her concerns about the size of property it allocated to her and the information it gave to her at the viewing. |
No later than 20 February 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should reoffer the resident the £200 offered in its stage 2 reply for complaint handling if this has not already been paid.
Our finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
27 February 2024 |
The resident made a stage 1 complaint in which she said:
|
|
3 April 2024 |
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply in which it said:
|
|
8 May 2024 |
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 because:
|
|
1 July 2024 |
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply in which it said:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate her complaint because she was overcrowded and she said this has affecting her physical and mental health and also affecting her son. She said she was verbally advised at the property viewing that she had to sign a disclaimer that she would not apply for a transfer due to overcrowding. She considered this to be indirect discrimination. She also said the landlord had not reviewed her medical application evidence and therefore she could not bid on properties. The outcome she was seeking was for the landlord to rehouse her into a 2-bedroom property. |
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.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the size of property it allocated to her and the information it gave to her at the viewing |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
10. Information provided to us by the landlord says that the resident’s local council has 100% nomination rights for new build properties. Therefore, when receiving a nomination from the council, the landlord would generally not look at its own policy. This is consistent with the landlord’s nominations agreement with the council, which says: “It is expected that housing associations will accept the council’s prioritisation of housing need and should reject nominees only in very specific circumstances”.
11. In this case, the council nominated the resident to the landlord to receive an offer of a 1-bedroom property in 2022 while she was pregnant. On the basis of having received the nomination from the council, the landlord offered the resident the 1-bedroom property. We consider it was reasonable for the landlord to have offered the resident the 1-bedroom property the council had nominated her to, rather than a larger one because:
- The property was a new-build flat and the council had 100% nomination rights to the property.
- It was for the council to use its Allocations Scheme to decide whether it should nominate the resident for a 1-bedroom property or a larger one based on her needs.
12. The resident later said that there had been a breakdown in communication between the council and the landlord in relation to the number of bedrooms she should have been offered and this breakdown should not result in any detriment to her. However, we have not seen any evidence to show there was a breakdown in communication between the 2 parties. The council had nominated the resident for a 1-bedroom property and the landlord had followed the council’s instructions in the form of the nomination.
13. We have not assessed the council’s actions as these fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), however, the council’s Housing Allocation Scheme at the time stated that lone pregnant women and couples expecting their first child would be assessed as requiring 1-bedroom accommodation. Therefore, on this basis, it was reasonable that the landlord did not contact the council to question the size of property she had been nominated for. The resident may wish to approach the LGSCO if she considers the council was at fault in nominating her to a 1-bedroom property while she was pregnant.
14. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident said that the landlord’s Rehousing Policy said it would take account of an expectant mother with a maternity certificate (MAT B1) provided there are no other children in the household. She therefore questioned why the landlord had not asked to see her MAT B1 form when it had offered her the property. The landlord said in its stage 1 and 2 replies that the policy applied to existing tenants of the landlord and therefore would not have applied to the resident at the time she was nominated by the council.
15. Having reviewed the landlord’s Rehousing Policy, our view is that it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that the policy only applied to existing tenants. The opening paragraph of the policy makes it clear that the purpose of the policy is to set out its approach for transferring tenants across its stock and supporting its tenants who wish to downsize. The policy does not give any indication that it applies to people who are not yet a tenant of the landlord.
16. The landlord’s Rehousing Policy also says that residents who have not lived in their property for a minimum of 12 months and passed their starter tenancy probationary period are unable to transfer under the policy. Therefore, as the resident was given a ‘starter assured tenancy’, she would not have been eligible to register for rehousing when she first moved to the property. The landlord advised the resident on 8 March 2023 that she could not register for a transfer during the probationary period, which was also appropriate as she was still in her probationary tenancy period at the time.
17. On 30 April 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that its lettings policy also said the landlord would take account of expectant mothers when allocating properties. However, it explained that it had acted on the council’s nomination instructions and allocated a 1-bedroom property. For the reasons already outlined above, we consider it was reasonable for the landlord to have offered the resident a 1-bedroom property.
18. As part of her referral to us, the resident said she believed the landlord had indirectly discriminated against her. We cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place as this is a legal matter which is better suited to the courts to decide. However, as part of our investigation, we have considered whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the concerns raised by the resident.
19. Part of the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints was that the officer who showed her the property said she would not be able to move because of overcrowding. She said the officer did not provide her with any additional information when she questioned this. The landlord did not address this point in either its stage 1 or stage 2 responses, which was unreasonable as our Complaint Handling Code make it clear that landlords must address all of the points raised in the complaint. The lack of response resulted in the resident raising the matter as part of her referral to us and therefore involved further time and trouble on her part.
20. We have also found it was unreasonable that the landlord did not answer the question in her emails of 24 January and 5 February 2024 about why she had not been offered an additional bedroom at the time of her nomination. The landlord’s failure to address her enquiries involved her in additional time and effort as she raised the same questions in her stage 1 complaint. In its stage 1 reply the landlord said that it had no records of contact from the resident on 24 January or 5 February 2024, which indicates there were also record keeping issues as the evidence shows that she had written to the landlord on these dates. The landlord apologised in its stage 2 reply that she had not received a response to her questions.
21. The resident later said that when she viewed the property the landlord had asked her to sign a disclaimer to confirm she would not apply for rehousing to a larger property due to overcrowding. We have not investigated whether the resident was asked to sign a disclaimer as it was not part of her complaint and a key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint. This ensures the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by us as part of its complaint response. For the same reason, we have only investigated matters up to the date of the landlord’s final response as we consider this to be fair and reasonable.
22. In summary, we have found that it was reasonable for the landlord to have offered the resident a 1-bedroom property as this had been requested by the council through its nominations process. We have also found it was reasonable for the landlord to have advised the resident that its Rehousing Policy did not apply to her at the time she was nominated by the council. However, we have found that there were problems with the landlord’s communications as it did not use its complaint responses to address one of the matters raised by the resident in her complaints and it did not respond to her questions in January and February 24.
23. The evidence suggests that the communication failures would not have changed the outcome for the resident as the landlord’s central point was that it had acted in line with the nominations agreement with the council in offering her a 1-bedroom property. However, the communication issues did result in the resident spending more time and effort requesting the information. We have therefore found there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the size of the property allocated and the information given to her at the viewing.
24. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £75 to reflect the additional time and trouble experienced by the resident in seeking responses to her questions. This sum is in line with the financial redress recommended in our Remedies Guidance for service failures.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be transferred to a 2-bedroom property on the same estate |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
25. The landlord’s rehousing policy says:
- The purpose of the policy is to outline the landlord’s approach to rehousing (transferring) social tenants and supporting tenants who wish to downsize from properties they are under-occupying.
- It will assess all applicants to determine whether they fall into one of its priority bands for an internal transfer.
- It will consider a management transfer for tenants who need to move due to violence, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, harassment or hate crime. It may also consider exceptional needs such as social, educational or economic circumstances.
- It will consider internal applicants ineligible for a property if they have not resided in their property for a minimum of 12 months and passed their starter tenancy probationary period.
26. As stated in our Remedies Guidance, we would not order a landlord to offer a resident a particular property as there may be other applicants who have a higher priority for that property and therefore such an order would be unfair to the other applicants. Similarly, we would not order a landlord to award a resident priority status for rehousing as this may be unfair on other applicants who are on the landlord’s waiting list.
27. On 8 November 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord and confirmed that as her son had now been born, she wanted to be considered for a 2-bedroom property, if possible on the same estate. During November and December 2024, the landlord requested a copy of her son’s birth certificate and updated the household records on its system. It was reasonable for the landlord to request evidence of her son’s birth prior to amending its records to show she needed a 2-bedroom property.
28. On 24 January 2024 the landlord confirmed to the resident that her internal transfer account was live. The landlord’s records show that the resident had passed the tenancy probationary period and therefore it was appropriate that it had added her to its internal transfer list in line with its Rehousing Policy.
29. The landlord used its stage 1 response to attach a medical assessment form for the resident to complete and return with supporting medical information. It explained that once it received the information from the resident, it would assess whether she should be given medical priority for a transfer to a 2-bedroom property. The landlord’s rehousing policy says: “we will arrange for medical applications to be independently assessed where we believe that the applicant may fall within our health and disability or medical priority bands”. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to send the medical form to the resident as she had said in her complaint that she was overcrowded and this was making her pre-existing health conditions worse.
30. On 7 May 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord to ask whether she could be considered for a 2-bedroom property that was currently vacant in her block. The landlord used its stage 2 reply on 1 July 2024 to explain that it could not agree to allocate a property to her outside of the internal transfer bidding process. It explained that all residents had to follow the same process to ensure fairness to other residents. The landlord’s response was appropriate as its Rehousing Policy explains that its internal transfer system is used to ensure allocations are fair and transparent.
31. As part of her stage 2 complaint, the resident asked whether she could be considered for a management transfer for a property on her estate as it would affect her mental health if she was offered a property away from the estate. The landlord advised the resident in its stage 2 reply when they would consider a management transfer and explained that she did not meet the criteria. It is not our role to say whether or not the resident qualifies for a transfer. It was reasonable that the landlord had used its response to advise the resident of the criteria for a management transfer and to provide her with a clear statement about whether she met the criteria.
32. Overall, we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be transferred to a 2-bedroom property on the same estate because:
- The landlord appropriately advised the resident that she could not register for an internal transfer until she had passed her tenancy probationary period.
- The landlord facilitated her registration on its internal transfer system after she had passed the probationary period.
- It sent her a medical assessment form so that she could apply for medical priority on its internal transfer system.
- It explained why it would not be fair to offer her a vacant property in her block.
- It explained the criteria for agreeing management transfers and gave a clear decision in relation to her request.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
33. 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 it will send the response. The extension should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
34. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 27 February 2024 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 March 2024, which was 18 working days later. The time taken by the landlord to acknowledge the complaint was inappropriate as it was not in line with its policy.
35. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 3 April 2024, which was 7 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. The response was therefore sent within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy.
36. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 8 May 2024 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 June 2024, which was 17 working days after she made the complaint. The landlord therefore did not acknowledge the complaint within an appropriate timescale. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 1 July 2024, which was 20 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord therefore sent its response within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy.
37. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 response that there had been complaint handling failures, for which it apologised and offered compensation of £200. The landlord’s Compensation and Remedies Policy says it will offer up to £200 for a “moderate” complaint handling failure where it had failed to follow its Complaints Policy resulting in inconvenience and effort to progress. In this case, the landlord had failed to acknowledge the complaints within appropriate timescales but had sent the actual complaint responses within the appropriate timescales.
38. The delays in acknowledging the complaints at both stages resulted in additional inconvenience, time and trouble. However, the evidence does not show there was a significant impact on the resident. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to categorise the failure as “moderate” and we consider it made a fair and proportionate offer of compensation to put things right. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
Learning
Communication
39. We have found there were issues with the landlord’s communication. It did not answer the resident’s questions raised in January and February 2024 about why it had not offered an additional bedroom at the time of her nomination. Also, it did not use its complaints process to answer her query about the information she said she had been given at the viewing. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to show it had fully investigated her complaint and to communicate its findings.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
40. The landlord stated in its stage 1 reply that it could not find any record of contact made by the resident on 24 January and 5 February 2024. The evidence seen shows that the resident emailed the landlord on these dates and therefore, the landlord’s statement shows a weakness in its record keeping.