Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Peabody Trust (202212509)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212509

Peabody Trust

14 February 2024


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports about staff conduct.
    2. Reports about the standard of communal cleaning.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is within a block of flats on an estate. The resident lives on the 5th floor of his block.
  2. The resident previously raised a complaint about staff conduct and the standard of communal cleaning which culminated in a stage 2 complaint response sent on 8 December 2020. Following this, the resident e-mailed the landlord to report new issues with the conduct of the caretaker of the estate on 4 January 2021. These included an incident where the resident felt the caretaker had deliberately pointed a leaf blower at him. The resident followed this up on 8 January 2021, providing additional evidence to the landlord about incidents with the caretaker which he believed represented harassment. He said the landlord’s failure to act against the caretaker had forced the resident to change his lifestyle and impacted his health. The resident told the landlord he wanted the caretaker to either be disciplined or removed from his block.
  3. The landlord responded to the resident on 12 January 2021. In its internal correspondence, it has appeared to indicate that this e-mail represented its stage 1 complaint response. However, this failed to provide the resident with the necessary referral rights, thus not making it a legitimate stage 1 complaint response under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. In this response, the landlord confirmed that it had inspected the block and found the overall cleaning standard to be good. It also said it had reviewed the evidence about the caretaker’s behaviour but felt it did not have enough evidence to support the resident’s claim of harassment. The landlord also confirmed that the caretaker had been moved out of the resident’s block to elsewhere on the estate.
  4. The resident responded on 17 January 2021, saying that he felt the landlord was continuing to allow the contractor to get away with harassment. He said that he wished to take his complaint to the Ombudsman and queried if the landlord’s previous e-mail represented a stage 2 complaint response. The resident and the landlord continued to communicate about the issues between February 2021 and April 2021. In this correspondence, the resident requested £100 from the landlord, stating that if the landlord provided this he would no longer talk to, report issues about, or record the caretaker. The landlord then provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 April 2021. It awarded the resident with the £100 for the distress and inconvenience of the situation, and £50 for delays in escalating the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. It said that whilst there were areas of the estate which needed looking at, the overall cleaning of the estate was at an acceptable level. It confirmed that it had now removed the caretaker from working on the resident’s block, and that it had passed on the resident’s concerns about how the estate was cleaned to the relevant team.
  5. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 12 September 2022 to inform it he had made a complaint to his landlord on 27 June 2022 but had received no response. He said this complaint was about the caretaker’s harassment and failure to clean correctly. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord who provided a new stage 2 complaint response in relation to this matter on 6 December 2022. This had the same complaint reference as its stage 2 response from 21 April 2021. The landlord provided the resident with £50 for the time and trouble of pursuing his complaint, and £50 for the delay in escalating the complaint. The landlord said it had inspected the estate and found the overall standard of cleaning to be good. It also informed him that it would not be moving the caretaker from the opposite block as it had found no evidence to support his claim of harassment.
  6. The resident confirmed on 22 March 2023 that he would like the Ombudsman to review his complaint. He stated to resolve his complaint, he would like the caretaker to be fired or removed from cleaning the block opposite. The resident also said he would like significant compensation for the distress and inconvenience the situation had caused him.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. According to paragraph 42(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which ‘concern terms of employment or other personnel issues, or the ending of a service tenancy following the ending of a contract of employment’. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to comment on the caretaker’s employment status. The Ombudsman will also not recommend or order anything in relation to the caretaker’s employment contract such as firing.
  2. The Ombudsman is not able to make findings of fact as to the incidents reported by the resident as harassment. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide whether harassment occurred. This Service will however consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns. This includes whether the landlord appropriately and fairly investigated the complaint based on available information, followed proper procedure, and took reasonable steps to respond in a way that was fair in all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of reports about staff’s conduct

  1. The landlord’s code of conduct for its staff states ‘You must not harass, bully, victimise or attempt to intimidate any person, or use threatening or aggressive behaviour or other discriminatory behaviours. You must seek to avoid microaggressions in your speech and behaviour’. It goes on to say it ‘will not tolerate harassment, bullying or any other unfair treatment’ and that it ‘will take any complaints about such actions seriously’.
  2. The resident has reported a number of incidents with the caretaker of his block, going back as far as 2019. The resident has mentioned to the landlord, when raising this complaint, that he had made reports to it about the caretaker on at least 12 occasions. Within the timeframe of this complaint, the resident has mentioned an incident with a leaf blower, an incident where the caretaker pushed past the resident using his shoulder, and the caretaker looking into his flat out of the window of the adjacent block.
  3. The landlord confirmed in its e-mail from 18 January 2021 that it moved the caretaker to a separate block, so he no longer cleans the resident’s block. This has been done to reduce the potential for contact between the two parties. The landlord also took the step of speaking with the caretaker about the situation. These were fair actions for the landlord to take.
  4. The landlord says it has not seen sufficient evidence to say that the resident has been the victim of harassment by the caretaker. The resident has viewed the videos that the resident has sent and reviewed the evidence available to it when making this decision. It has found that, after reviewing everything provided, it did not have sufficient evidence to say that the caretaker had acted in a way to breach its employee code of conduct.
  5. The resident mentioned that he could produce witnesses to support his testimony. There was a specific witness mentioned in relation to the pushing incident, and other residents who could attest for the harassment. The landlord asked the resident to provide details for these witnesses so it could follow up, however the resident failed to provide their details to the landlord.
  6. Overall, the landlord appears to have considered all of the evidence the resident provided and taken his concerns seriously. The decision it has made that it does not have enough evidence to be able to substantiate claims of harassment were reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. The landlord has offered the resident £150 compensation across its two stage 2 complaint responses. It said that this was in recognition of the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in relation to the complaint and reporting concerns. This was in line with the amount of compensation that the resident sought in 2021 and demonstrated that the landlord was resolution-focused and willing to apply its discretion appropriately.

The landlord’s handling of reports about the standards of communal cleaning

  1. The landlord currently employs caretakers who perform the cleaning and maintenance of the estate, including within the communal indoor areas and outdoor areas. The resident’s reports often mentioned historic incidents relating to the caretaker’s cleaning performance. However, the resident has referred to the landlord’s standard of cleaning in his complaint, therefore it is reasonable for the landlord to have treated this as part of the complaint.
  2. The landlord visited the estate to perform inspections on a number of occasions. On each visit, it found the level of cleaning on the estate to be acceptable. These visits were carried out by several different members of staff who all concluded the standards to be acceptable. The landlord also reviewed its records and again found that the standard of cleaning was acceptable.
  3. The landlord communicated the resident’s reports to the relevant team as feedback. It also alerted them to the area of concerns for the resident. These included the handrail cleaning and the noise made when cleaning the communal staircase. This represented good practice from the landlord and demonstrated that it sought to respond reasonably to the resident’s specific concerns.
  4. The landlord did find areas where it said cleaning and maintenance had been difficult. This included an area outside a basement window which the landlord was unable to fully access. The landlord nonetheless cleaned as far as possible this area. It also appears to have responded to any issues it found when inspecting appropriately and in a timely manner.
  5. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports about the standards of communal cleaning. It undertook visits to perform inspections, spoke with the relevant teams and dealt with any minor issues that it found appropriately. Throughout the complaints process, the landlord continued to find that the standard of estate cleaning was acceptable.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will provide a response to a complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process within 10 working days. At stage 2, it says it will provide this within 20 working days. It says there may be times when an extension is required but says that, in these instances, it will inform residents.
  2. The landlord does not appear to have provided the resident a stage 1 complaint response for his recent complaints. After the resident came back to raise new issues following a previous complaint, the landlord responded by e-mail and later provided a stage 2 complaint response with a new complaint reference. However, it failed to acknowledge this as a new stage 1 complaint, or to provide a response under stage 1 of its complaint response.
  3. From its internal correspondence, it appears the landlord may have considered its e-mail sent to the resident on 12 January 2021 as a stage 1 response. The landlord has not provided information to clarify this or explain why no formal stage 1 response was provided. The landlord’s actions when the complaint was made to it represented a failure in service. It failed to follow its complaints procedure and its actions prevented the resident from being able to access the full complaints procedure. These actions will inevitably have led to uncertainty and time and trouble for the resident.
  4. The resident responded to the landlord’s e-mail on 17 January 2021, querying if this was a stage 2 complaint response which he informed it he needed in order to take his complaint to the Ombudsman. The landlord should have recognised this as an escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord then took until 21 April 2021 to provide its stage 2 complaint response. This was outside of the timescales set out in its complaint policy. For this delay, the landlord provided the resident with £50 compensation.
  5. The landlord also sent the resident a second stage 2 complaint response under the same reference in December 2022. These were almost 20 months apart, however. The reason behind its actions is not clear and no evidence has been provided by the landlord for this. The resident raised a new complaint in June 2022 but the landlord failed to respond until December 2022. This again represented a failure in service from the landlord. If the landlord had decided not to raise a new complaint due to this matter being investigated previously, the Ombudsman would have expected it to explain this to the resident. The landlord has not followed its policy and as a result did not treat the resident fairly. It failed to explain the reason for its actions and delays.
  6. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation across its two stage 2 complaint responses for its delays. However, it has failed to provide compensation for its failures to properly follow its policy, both in providing a stage 1 complaint in January 2021 and in raising a new complaint in June 2022. The landlord should therefore pay the resident £200 for its maladministration in the handling of the complaint, inclusive of its previous offer of £100. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures within this range where a landlord failure has adversely affected a resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports about staff conduct.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports about the standard of communal cleaning.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within four weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £200, inclusive of its previous complaint handling offer of £100, for its failure to handle the resident’s complaint fairly and in line with its policies.
    2. Apologise to the resident for this failing.
    3. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the £150 it awarded for distress and inconvenience (across its two stage 2 complaint responses) if it has not already paid this to the resident.