Peabody Trust (202217434)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217434

Peabody Trust

30 April 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. The complaint is about;
   1. The landlord’s communication with the resident following his reports of defective street lighting.
   2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a flat. On 15 November 2021, the resident reported to the landlord, who is the freeholder, that the external street lighting was not working. Following attempted repairs, the landlord established that the fault originated from a neighbouring block that was managed by another housing association.
3. On 7 January 2022, the resident raised a complaint. He said that the lighting had not been fixed, which was dangerous for the residents on the estate. The resident was also unhappy that he had not received any response from the landlord when he had chased for updates on several occasions.
4. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 April 2022. The landlord explained that it had repeatedly contacted the other housing association to request the repair but had not received any response. It advised that it would contact the resident when it had a further update.
5. Between April and May 2022, the landlord contacted the housing association on several occasions chasing for a repair update, highlighting that the street lighting had not been working for approximately 7 months. The landlord also kept the resident informed when chaser emails had been sent. However, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint.
6. On 20 May 2022, the landlord issued a stage one response to the resident. It advised that it had chased the housing association and was waiting for a response regarding the repair. It reiterated that as the repair was not its responsibility, it was unable to take any further action. It acknowledged that the resident wished to escalate his complaint.
7. It is unclear whether the landlord received a request from the resident to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints process. Nevertheless, on 21 June 2022, the landlord issued a stage two response. The landlord acknowledged how protracted the process had been for the resident and apologised for the inconvenience that he had experienced while pursuing the repair. It said that while it could not do the repair work, it had a duty to ensure the matter was progressed. The landlord also recognised that there had been failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation, comprised of £50 for his time and trouble, and £50 for the complaint handling delays.
8. While the housing association confirmed to the landlord that repairs to the lighting were due to take place on 22 June 2022, this Service is aware that it did not take place. The housing association confirmed that the repair was complex involving multiple agencies. There was a significant amount of communication between the landlord, resident, and housing association between June 2022 and November 2022 regarding when the repairs would take place. This Service understands that the lighting was fixed in May 2023.
9. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the matter because of the significant delays regarding the repairs, as well as the landlord’s poor communication.

Assessment and findings

Scope

10. The basis of the resident’s complaint was about defective street lighting and the delays in them being repaired. There is no dispute that the lighting repairs were the responsibility of another housing association. The landlord’s responsibility here was to ensure that it took the appropriate action to pursue a repair on behalf of its residents and to provide updates in good time to the interested parties.
11. In accordance with paragraph 25a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, a person can make a complaint about a member of the scheme that he/she has a landlord/tenant relationship with. Therefore, as the repairs sat with another housing association that the resident does not have a landlord/tenant relationship with, this Service is unable to investigate the actual delays to the repairs. 
12. However, this Service can investigate the landlord’s communication with the resident after he reported the defective street lighting and whether it was it took reasonable steps to pursue a repair in the circumstances.

The landlord’s communication with the resident following his reports of defective street lighting.

13. Effective communication is critical in maintaining a positive relationship between a landlord and a resident. Poor communication can ultimately erode the resident’s trust in the landlord, and lead to a breakdown in the landlord/resident relationship.
14. In this case, the landlord failed to effectively communicate with the resident. The resident reported the repair on 15 November 2021. This Service has seen evidence of the resident making numerous phone calls in December 2021, chasing for updates, and requesting callbacks. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident back, which is inappropriate.
15. It is unclear when the landlord told the resident that the repair to the street lighting was not its responsibility. While this Service acknowledges that the repair was not the landlord’s responsibility, had it advised the resident of this at an earlier stage, the resident may not have felt it necessary to raise a formal complaint or experienced frustration due to feeling ignored.
16. Positively, the landlord provided the resident with regular updates after issuing its stage one response. The landlord sent regular emails to the housing association who was responsible for the repairs and made reasonable efforts to obtain updates to share with the resident. The responses from the housing association were irregular, which was beyond the landlord’s control. The landlord escalated the matter to senior leadership in the housing association, which was proactive and evidenced a willingness to ensure the repair was progressed.
17. The landlord recognised that it failed to communicate with the resident when he initially raised the repair, which it apologised for. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration at having to pursue the repair, which was exacerbated by the landlord’s lack of communication. In recognition of the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience, the landlord offered £50 compensation.
18. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
19. Overall, this Service has seen evidence of service failure by the landlord due to lack of communication. However, the landlord has made appropriate efforts to put things right by offering an apology and compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £50 and £100 should be considered where there are minor failings by the landlord in the service it provided. The landlord therefore made an offer that was in accordance with this Service’s guidance and its offer of redress was satisfactory in putting matters right.
20. As the landlord has already offered this amount, a recommendation has been made for it to make the payment (£50) if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation being paid.

The associated complaint handling.

21. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines that it operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. This is in accordance with the timescales set out in this Service’s complaint handling code (CHC).
22. The CHC is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes quickly, improve the quality of the service it provides to residents and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement. A landlord’s failure to adhere to the code and its own complaint procedures could result in issues not being resolved effectively and could also damage the landlord/tenant relationship.
23. The resident raised a complaint on 7 January 2022 via a dedicated complaints email address. The content of the resident’s email was a clear expression of dissatisfaction of the service he had received from the landlord, and he had requested a resolution. Therefore, the landlord should have started its internal complaints process and issued a stage one response within 10 working days.
24. The CHC sets out that landlords must offer formal complaint responses under its complaints process. A stage one response must be issued within 10 working days of the complaint being logged and must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
25. The code further sets out that landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage one in clear, plain language:
    1. the complaint stage.
    2. the complaint definition.
    3. the decision on the complaint.
    4. the reasons for any decisions made.
    5. the details of any remedy offered to put things right.
    6. details of any outstanding actions.
    7. details of how to escalate the matter to stage two if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
26. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 April 2022; 69 working days after the resident raised his complaint. This is significantly outside the 10 working day timeframe outlined within its policy. The letter did not explicitly outline that it was a stage one response. While it outlined the resident’s complaint and advised on the action it was taking, it did not confirm the complaint stage, the decision on the resident’s complaint nor did it provide details on how the resident could escalate his complete. This was unreasonable.
27. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its complaint policy and the CHC and failed to respond to the complaint via a stage one response. This meant that the resident did not have the reassurance and benefit of response timescales, the opportunity to receive a formal remedy to put things right and an awareness in how to escalate his complaint should he wish to do so. This was unreasonable.
28. On 20 May 2022, the landlord issued its stage one response; 94 working days after the resident raised his complaint. This is significantly outside the 10 working day response timescale outlined within the CHC and the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord did not provide an explanation for the delay, nor did it compensate the resident for its complaint handling failures which was inappropriate.
29. Furthermore, the response was issued after the resident told the landlord that he wished to escalate his complaint. The content of the landlord’s previous letter issued in April 2022 could reasonably have been perceived as a stage one response to the resident, therefore he would have been expecting a stage two response. The complaints process became confused and disjointed, which prolonged the matter and caused the resident significant delays in being able to bring his complaint to this Service for an independent investigation.
30. The landlord issued its stage two response 21 days after confirming it had escalated the resident’s complaint. While marginally outside the expected timescale, this was appropriate, and the 1 day delay had no detrimental impact on the resident. In its stage two response, the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This is not proportionate redress given the delay the resident experienced, which prevented him from being able to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman Service for an unreasonable length of time.
31. Although the landlord apologised to the resident and awarded compensation for its complaint-handling failures, this was not sufficient to reflect the impact the delay had on him. The landlord failed to follow its complaint process causing distress and frustration for the resident and prolonging the complaints process. Overall, there were significant failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and as such, this Service has reached a finding of maladministration.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s communication with the resident following his reports of defective street lighting.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

34. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £200 compensation, inclusive of the £50 already offered for its complaint handling failures.
35. Evidence of compliance with the above order must be sent to this Service within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

36. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the £50 compensation already offered to the resident for its identified communication failures.