Peabody Trust (202344153)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344153

Peabody Trust

29 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. report of a blocked kitchen sink;
2. concerns about the conduct of the contractor;
3. rent account;
4. associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy that commenced on 2 June 2014. The landlord is a housing association. The property is described as a 1-bedroom flat.
The resident has vulnerabilities. The landlord told us the resident is disabled with mobility issues.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 December 2023 regarding rent letters he received. The landlord acknowledged this and apologised for the delay in the resident receiving communication about his rent account. The resident was referred to its income team.
The resident reported blockages to the kitchen sink on 19 January 2024 and 6 February 2024. Each time, the landlord attended the resident’s property. The kitchen waste pipe was cleaned and the blockage cleared. A descale of the stack was recommended as follow on works.
On 19 February 2024, the resident completed an online complaint form. He said the kitchen sink was blocked. He advised that an operative attended without the equipment to clear the blockage and another did so without an appointment. He alleged that the operative who attended that day was aggressive and used abusive language which made him feel intimidated. The resident said his preferred outcome was the completion of the repair and the landlord to confirm he would not experience such behaviour again. After he approached us, we wrote to the landlord in April 2024 to ask that it respond to his complaint and that this included the resident’s concern that it chased him for rent arrears that did not exist.
The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 25 April 2024. It said:
1. Repairs: It had attended and cleared the blocked kitchen sink. The drainage contractor said an access panel was required to carry out the descale of the communal stack pipe. A repair had been raised for this. It apologised for any frustration or inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. Conduct of the contractor: It spoke to its contractor and subcontractor regarding the resident’s allegations. Both were reminded of the expected standards and the need to follow procedures. It could not tell the resident exactly what was said due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). It noted that mutual respect was required to ensure repair visits were effective.
3. Rent account: The rent account was paid by housing benefit, 4 weeks in arrears. The rent account was in arrears. An arrears letter was generated if the rent account did not have a zero balance. It acknowledged it had sent 3 rent letters in the previous 6 months and signposted the resident to discuss his rent account with his income officer.
4. Complaint handling: It acknowledged the inconvenience, frustration and disruption experienced by the resident. For this, it awarded compensation of £240, made up of £200 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused and £40 for its complaint handling failures.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the landlord. He said the compensation award was too low as it did not reflect the 7 months the repair was outstanding and he did not have use of his washing machine. He claimed the landlord had ignored his evidence of threatening behaviour by the operative and “lied” about the operative returning. The resident went on to say the landlord blamed him for the arrears even though a direct debit was in place. The resident concluded by saying he felt unsafe and let down by the landlord’s actions.
On 25 June 2024, the landlord provided its final complaint response. It said:
1. After the resident refused to grant access for the creation of the access panel, it had closed the repair. Once the resident agreed to the works, it would raise a new repair which would be monitored.
2. It took allegations about its staff and contractors seriously. If it had evidence to support allegations, it would take action. It was satisfied its contractors had taken the appropriate action by speaking to the operative and they sent a different operative to the resident’s home.
3. It upheld the resident’s complaint as its lack of response caused him to contact us. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the conduct of the contractor or its handling of the rent account as it had followed its policy.
4. To improve its complaint handling, it had employed and trained additional staff to address the number of complaints received.
5. The compensation award was increased to £500, broken down as £300 for the poor complaint journey and £200 for the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this Service. He said the kitchen sink remained blocked and the same operative he complained about returned to his address. He reported that the property already had an access panel and a repairs supervisor had visited and suggested a different course of action may be necessary rather than a descale of the stack.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In August 2022, we determined a complaint made by the resident about the landlord’s handling of his report of anti-social behaviour. We ordered the landlord to discuss re-housing options with the resident. At the time, the resident decided not to move but has now told us he is considering this. The resident should contact his landlord to discuss the options available to him.
The resident also raised concerns about his heating, hot water and a gas leak. As these did not form part of the formal complaint made to the landlord under consideration, this is not something we can investigate at this time. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports. If he has not already done so, the resident may contact the landlord and raise a separate complaint to get these matters resolved. If he remains dissatisfied, he may then approach the Ombudsman.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says emergency repairs will be made safe within 4 hours and completed within 24 hours. Non urgent repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. It expects service providers to act appropriately in resident’s homes, showing respect for them and their belongings.
The landlord’s rent collection policy says it will collect a minimum of 1 weeks rent in advance. It will help residents claim benefits and use a variety of methods to contact residents where they owe rent. It will take account of vulnerability and work to resolve any arrears resulting from housing benefit or universal credit.
A code of conduct applies to the landlord’s contractors and outlines that operatives must not bring the landlord into disrepute by harassing, bullying, victimising, or using threatening or aggressive behaviour. Failure to follow the code will be considered a disciplinary matter.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond within 10 working days at its first stage and within 20 working days at its final stage.

Blocked sink

The landlord’s repairing obligations require it to keep the property in repair. This includes the drainage in the property. Once a landlord is given notice that a repair is required, it should inspect and carry out works in line with policy timescales.
The landlord’s repair policy says that it respond to reports regarding the integrity of the property as an emergency. The landlord acted in line with this when it responded to the resident’s reports of a blocked sink on 19 January 2024, 19 February 2024 and 18 April 2024. The landlord’s evidence shows that, on each occasion, it cleared the blockage and the resident was left with an operational sink. This was reasonable.
During this period, the contractor told the landlord that a descale of the stack pipe was necessary. For this, an access panel needed to be created. The resident disputed this, advising there was already an access panel in his bathroom. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information supplied by its specialist drainage contractor as they would consider the location of the blockage and the use of specialist machinery. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to explain to the resident why it assessed it could not use the bathroom access panel. This would have demonstrated it had listened, and given reassurance, to the resident.
The landlord contacted the resident to arrange for the stack pipe descale. The resident did not provide access, believing the same operative who he alleged threatened him had returned to complete the repair. The landlord’s communication with the resident demonstrated it tried to reassure him that a different operative would be attending to resolve the blockage. This was reasonable.
The landlord is obliged to identify the reason for the blockages and undertake a full and lasting repair within a reasonable timescale. The landlord recognised the limitations of the work it could carry out during the emergency call outs and the necessity for the stack to be descaled. It was not reasonable for the landlord to close the repair once there was a dispute about the access panel. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident is required to provide access for repairs to be carried out. The landlord should have taken appropriate steps to ensure access was granted for the works to take place and done more to explain why its contractor remained of the view that a new access panel was needed.
Follow on works to fix the kitchen waste were apparently completed on 24 June 2024. This is disputed by the resident who maintains the kitchen waste is blocked. In any case, the stack descale remains incomplete 18 months after the reports in early 2024.
In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and awarded £200 compensation. The award is not proportionate for the impact of the failings on the resident and the landlord did not recognise that its own communications likely contributed to the continued stack descale delay. The landlord did not address the resident’s concern about his ability to use his washing machine. This demonstrates a failing to put things right and learn from outcomes. For these reasons, we find there was service failure by the landlord.

Contractor conduct

The Ombudsman cannot consider staff disciplinary decisions or processes. However, we can assess whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s contractors are supposed to abide by its code of conduct. Contractors are to treat residents with courtesy and respect. Having been advised of the resident’s concerns, we would expect the landlord to carry out an investigation to establish what occurred. It was reasonable that the landlord raised with its contractor the resident’s report that their operative made threats.
The landlord received counter allegations from the contractor about what occurred at the resident’s flat – these differed from the resident’s report. In its complaint response, the landlord said it did not have evidence to support the resident’s allegations about the operative’s behaviour.
However, the resident informed the landlord that he had recorded the operative’s visit and offered to send this to it. The resident informed us that he did send the recording to the landlord. The landlord should have requested and viewed the recording. This would have enabled a full and balanced investigation. The landlord would likely have been able to establish whether the operative acted in line with its code of conduct.
The resident said that the landlord minimised the behaviour of the operative by describing the allegation of them being “rude” when he had actually complained about abusive and aggressive behaviour. Had the landlord obtained and viewed the recording, its complaint investigation may have addressed this specific point. It could also have established whether the operative’s conduct required further action by it or its contractor.
The landlord received confirmation from its contractor that a different operative later attended the resident’s property to resolve the blockage. It is noted that the resident disputes this. The Ombudsman has seen evidence the landlord checked this with its contractor. This was reasonable.
The landlord is expected to act fairly and investigate reports of staff misconduct. It took some steps to speak to its contractor to establish what occurred during the visit to the resident’s property. However, its decision not to request and review the recording the resident held meant that its investigation was not as full as it may have been. We have therefore found there was service failure by the landlord.

Rent account

The resident’s tenancy agreement says the rent is paid weekly and in advance. The resident receives housing benefit paid directly to the landlord. The resident has a direct debit in place for his contribution to the rent. The resident is responsible for the rent payment to his rent account.
The landlord’s rent collection policy says that it will work with residents to maintain their rent account by making early interventions. The resident complained that, despite having a direct debit in place, he received letters about his rent account. The resident described the letters as threatening in December 2023, January 2024 and April 2024 and said that these caused distress.
The landlord accepted in its complaint response that at least 3 letters were sent during the previous 6 months and apologised for any distress experienced by the resident. The landlord did not provide copies of these letters to this Service when we requested them. This hampered the investigation as we could not consider the frequency, content or the information provided to the resident.
The landlord explained in its complaint response that arrears letters are triggered to remind residents to make a payment. The landlord explained that these were automated and it could not intervene to stop the letters being triggered if the resident did not have a zero balance. It is reasonable for a landlord to have such a system as this helps avoid rent accounts falling further into arrears. Therefore, this Service is satisfied that there was no service failure in the issuing of arrears letters. This is because the tenancy agreement states the rent account must be paid at least a week in advance. The resident did not do so.
It is understandable that the resident was frustrated by receiving the rent arrears letters. Nevertheless, it was reasonable that the landlord explained in its complaint response the importance of regularly reviewing his rent account and informed him he could speak to its Income Team. The resident was also signposted to the tenant and family support team who could provide additional support in the management of his rent account.
The resident is expected to make rent payments in line with the tenancy agreement. Landlords monitor rent accounts to ensure such payments are made. The resident has complained about the frequency and content of the letters he received. The landlord accepted it sent the letters. We have found no evidence that the letters were incorrectly sent. However, given the letters sent to the resident have not been provided to us for review, this has hampered our investigation into their tone and the landlord also failed to review this point through the complaints process. For that reason, we conclude that there was a service failure.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint procedure says it will respond to initial complaints within 10 working days and final stage complaints within 20 working days.
The resident complained to the landlord on 19 February 2024. The landlord is expected to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The landlord attempted to speak to the resident on 5 March 2024 to clarify the complaint. However, the time was not convenient for the resident. The resident was able to confirm he remained upset by the conduct of the contractor and the unresolved repair to remedy the drain blockage.
We wrote to the landlord on 12 April 2024, requesting it respond to the complaint. In response, the landlord told the resident it had received the complaint on 16 April 2024 and would respond by 26 April 2024. The landlord’s response was incorrect as it had already received, and spoken to the resident about, the complaint. This likely contributed to the resident’s belief that he was being ignored by the landlord.
The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 25 April 2024. This was not reasonable. There was an unnecessary delay of several weeks which likely caused distress and frustration to the resident.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the complaint response and escalated his complaint. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 29 April 2024.
The resident later contacted us to say he had not received the landlord’s complaint response. We wrote to the landlord, requesting it respond by 7 June 2024. The landlord should request an extension with the resident if it cannot meet its published complaint handling timescales. At both stages of the complaints process, there is no evidence it did so. This likely contributed to the resident’s loss of faith in the landlord.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 25 June 2024 – this was again a delay of several week beyond its published complaint handling timescales.
In its complaint review, the landlord recognised its complaint handling failures. It apologised for this and made a compensation award of £300. This recognised the late acknowledgements at both stages of the complaint procedure and that it had not properly taken into account the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord also said it had learnt from the complaint, advising it was going through a period of change. It explained it had employed additional staff and carried out training to resolve the high number of cases it received.
Our remedies guide sets out our dispute resolution principles – be fair, put things right and learn from mistakes. It says that compensation awards between £100 to £600 are payable for service failures that adversely affected the resident. In light of the landlord’s apology, compensation level and its assurances on lessons learned, we conclude that the landlord offered redress that was proportionate for the impact of its failings on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the report of a blocked kitchen sink.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the contractor.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the rent account.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to our investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident overall compensation of £500, including the £200 it agreed in its final complaint response. This is broken down as:
  1. an additional £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the handling of the repairs to the blocked kitchen sink;
  2. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in the handling of the conduct of the contractor;
  3. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in the handling of the rent account.
3. If it has already paid the resident the £200 it offered to him, it can offset this amount from the £500 ordered above and pay the remaining balance to the resident. The amount should be paid to the resident and not offset against any arrears owed.
4. Contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient appointment to inspect the kitchen waste and the access panel in the kitchen. The landlord should decide how it intends to descale the stack.
5. It must write to the resident within 2 weeks of the inspection to confirm the findings. The landlord should advise whether further works are required to the kitchen waste, what works it will do to descale the stack, why it cannot use the access panel the resident says it should and the timescale for these to be carried out. If required, a point of contact is to be provided. A copy of the letter should be provided to this Service.
6. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders in the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £300 it agreed in its final complaint response for its complaint handling failures. Our finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the payment being made.
The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks to confirm its intention in regard to this recommendation.