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

Peabody Trust (202220504)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220504

Peabody Trust

14 May 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for a copy of maintenance reports.
    2. The resident’s concerns about the conduct of a landlord employee.
  2. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling in this case.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a landlord employee is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern terms of employment including the conduct of employees.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of her flat that is situated on the 6th floor of the building. This is a shared ownership lease that began in July 2013.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages. It commits to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Summary of events

  1. The resident made a request to the landlord for a copy of its latest legionnaire testing report on 17 April 2022. The resident said the landlord had not previously carried out recommended work identified within a prior report until she raised a complaint. It was therefore important for her to see the latest report to satisfy herself the landlord was fulfilling its repair and maintenance obligations.
  2. The resident also requested a copy of the roof maintenance report for the building’s roof garden on 17 April 2022. It is unclear from the landlord records if this request was made at the same time as her request for the legionnaire report.
  3. During May 2022, the resident made various chase ups to the landlord asking for a copy of the legionnaire report. On 16 May 2022, the landlord responded to the resident and apologised for its delayed response. It said it had raised the resident’s request for the legionnaire report with its building team and it asked the team to make contact with the resident urgently.
  4. The landlord sent the resident another email on 1 June 2022 to apologise that she had not received a response to her request for the legionnaire report. The landlord said it had chased this up again. It was further confirmed that this was logged as a service failure by the landlord.
  5. During June 2022 and July 2022, the resident continued to chase the landlord for a response from her April 2022 request for information. The landlord did respond to the resident during this time, but only to say it had sent its case handler a message to contact her.
  6. On 4 July 2022 the landlord responded to the resident to say it would not provide copies of ‘work certificates’ in relation to the requested information. The resident corrected the landlord on 10 July 2022 to say she did not want a copy of the certificates but reiterated she had requested copies of the legionnaire and roof maintenance reports.
  7. Shortly after on 12 July 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to say it would not be able to provide the legionnaire report. The resident was not happy with the landlord’s response and asked for an explanation as to why it was refusing to provide the report. The landlord responded on 19 July 2022 to say a director had made the decision but it did not give the resident a rationale for this decision.
  8. The resident submitted a complaint via the landlord’s website on 14 August 2022. This was about the landlord’s failure to provide a copy of the legionnaire testing report and the roof maintenance report. The landlord replied to the resident 23 August 2022 and apologised as it had missed the submission of the complaint web form due to a technical issue. It said it was looking into her request for information. It said the roof maintenance report had been raised under a separate complaint.
  9. The resident continued to contact the landlord for a response to her complaint between August 2022 to October 2022. The landlord did not send its complaint response until 16 October 2022. However, this was only in relation to the resident’s request for a copy of the legionnaire report.
  10. In the landlord’s complaint response to the resident, it said the complaint was logged on 9 September 2022 and it apologised it was late in sending its response. The landlord attached a copy of a water hygiene risk assessment (legionnaire) report dated 12 October 2020 and an annual service inspection report of October 2021. The landlord explained the following:
    1. It was reluctant to provide the report because it was a technical report that could be misinterpreted.
    2. The assistant director of mechanical and electrical services explained it was their responsibility whether or not to act on the recommendations and they are held personally liable if the landlord does not adhere to current regulations concerning water testing. They had reviewed the report and no work was considered necessary.
    3. It offered the resident compensation of £100 for its failure to handle the complaint in accordance with its timescales.
  11. The resident sent a letter to the landlord on 22 October 2022 and said the landlord had incorrectly recorded her first complaint to be 9 September 2022 instead of 14 August 2022. The resident said the landlord’s response of 16 October 2022 did not provide answers to all the points she had raised and it did not satisfactorily address her concerns. The resident referred to the following issues:
    1. The stage 1 complaint response recorded an incorrect address on the letter.
    2. The response failed to inform the resident how she could progress her complaint to stage 2 of its procedure.
    3. The response failed to address the issue of the landlord blocking formal complaints and not processing complaints or replying on time.
    4. The resident said the landlord had criticised her for submitting too many emails and formal complaints. She did not understand why the landlord had split her complaint.
  12. During November 2022, the resident continued to contact the landlord. She was concerned she had not received a reply from the landlord to her email of 22 October 2022. The landlord replied to the resident on 18 November 2022 with the following response:
    1. It apologised for an incorrect address on the letter.
    2. The landlord said the stage 1 complaint explanation was correct.
    3. It did not feel it was necessary to provide the legionnaire report and it did not feel it was a complaint failure but a request for service.
    4. It explained it sometimes separates complaints and provides individual responses.
    5. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the delays in sending her the water testing (legionnaire) report.
  13. On 24 December 2022, the resident requested to escalate her complaint. The landlord provided the resident with its complaint response. However, it is unclear when this was sent as there is no date on its correspondence. The landlord outlined the following:
    1. Delay in responding to the resident – It acknowledged there had been delays in some communications. It said it did not have any key performance indicators for responding to emails but it did have internal service standards and it aimed to respond to enquiries within 5 working days. The landlord apologised for its delayed response and explained its plan to upskill more staff to deal with its increase in email communications.
    2. The landlord agreed to review the full key performance indicators to improve its service in relation to resident contact via digital channels.
  14. The resident had to chase up the landlord on numerous occasions about her request for a copy of the roof report. In the landlord’s email to the resident (20 January 2023), it said there was no roof maintenance report to provide.
  15. On 10 February 2023, the landlord’s internal email said it would register a stage 1 complaint in relation to the roof report. On 7 March 2023, the landlord sent its complaint response to the resident. It attached a copy of the roof maintenance report for 2022 and the following response was outlined:
    1. In April 2022, the resident requested a copy of the roof maintenance report.
    2. On 14 August 2022, the resident made a formal complaint. The landlord sent a response to the resident on 23 August 2022 to say it had assigned the complaint to its ‘latent defects team’. This was assigned incorrectly and it should have gone to its ‘landscape team’. The landlord acknowledged the delay to send its response to the resident and it apologised for this.
    3. There had been various email exchanges between August 2022 and December 2022 from the resident to try and obtain the report and receive a complaint response.
    4. The landlord said it had not blocked or restricted the resident from logging complaints but it acknowledged the complaint of 14 August 2022 was not seen until a later date.
    5. The landlord acknowledged it was confused about what information the resident required and it apologised for this.
    6. The landlord offered the resident £75 compensation to reflect its poor complaint handling and £75 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience.
  16. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 March 2023 to request it escalate her complaint about the roof maintenance report request. Shortly afterwards on 21 March 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and said it would aim to provide a response within 20 working days. Due to receiving a high number of escalations, the landlord extended the response date to 21 April 2023.
  17. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint on 21 April 2023 regarding the roof maintenance report. It said there had been confusion and mix up; some of which was due to the resident as it said she had referred to a maintenance report. However, the landlord found the report to be a gardening/ landscaping report. The landlord offered the resident a further £50 compensation in recognition of its complaint handling failures. By the end of its internal complaint procedures, the landlord had offered the resident a total compensation amount of £200 for complaint handling failures identified at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints procedure.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for copies of maintenance reports.

  1. In April 2022, the resident requested a copy of the landlord’s legionnaire report. There was a delay in the response of the landlord which caused the resident the unnecessary inconvenience of having to send the landlord numerous chase up emails during May 2022. The landlord’s delay was unnecessary.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident mid-May 2022 but only to say it had made the request for information to the relevant landlord department. It was unreasonable that it did not offer the resident an explanation for its delayed response.
  3. The resident had to continue to chase up the landlord for the information during June 2022 and July 2022. In early July 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to say it would not provide copies of work certificates. However, the resident had not requested the certificates and she had to correct the landlord. This mistake by the landlord is likely to have negatively impacted the resident and caused her unnecessary frustration and additional inconvenience of having to chase and correct the landlord for a request for information which was neither complex or ambiguous.
  4. The landlord refused to provide the resident with the legionnaire report. This resulted in the resident raising a complaint mid-August 2022. The landlord did eventually send the resident a copy of 2 reports mid-October 2022 , some 6 months later. These reports were a water hygiene (legionnaire) risk assessment of October 2020 and the annual service inspection report of October 2021.
  5. Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it explained to the resident it was reluctant to provide the legionnaire report because it was a technical report that could be misinterpreted. The poor handling of the information request and unnecessary delays in the landlords processes have resulted in an unreasonable 6 month wait for the resident to be provided with the landlord’s decision in relation to her request for the document.
  6. If the landlord’s primary concern around the disclosure of the legionnaire report was that it could be misconstrued, it did not apparently consider alternative solutions such as to release the report in conjunction with a summary of its key findings in plain English. The landlord could have also considered to meet with the resident to explain the technical terms within the report. This could have reassured the resident the landlord did not have any concerns about the water safety. Such a response would have satisfied the service request and provided the appropriate safeguards for the landlord concerning misrepresentation of the main report. It should be noted the resident pays for maintenance services through a service charge and therefore it was not an unreasonable request for the resident to be provided with a copy of the report.
  7. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction to the landlord on a number of occasions throughout October 2022. The landlord replied to the resident mid November 2022 and offered her £50 compensation for the delay in her receiving a copy of the water testing (legionnaire) report.  This amount of compensation is aligned to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to reflect there had been some impact on the resident. The landlord’s offer of  compensation was therefore appropriate and reflected the 6-month delay in the resident receiving the information as well as her time and trouble of having to chase up the landlord for a response to her request for information.
  8. The resident made a request to the landlord for a copy of the roof maintenance report sometime in April 2022. However, the landlord did not respond to her request until the end of August 2022 when it said it had raised a separate complaint.
  9. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint early March 2023 about her request for a copy of the roof maintenance report and it attached a copy of this report for 2022. The landlord acknowledged it had been confused about the resident’s request and although it offered the resident compensation for its complaint handling failures, it was inappropriate that it did not reflect on its prolonged delays of 12 month in providing the resident with a copy of the roof report when making its offer of compensation.
  10. In summary, the landlord’s delayed response to the resident’s request for a copy of the maintenance reports were unreasonable. Although the landlord put things right for the resident by way of its offer of £50 compensation in its recognition of delays in providing her with the water testing (legionnaire) report, it did not recognise the delays in providing her with the roof report. The landlord should therefore compensate the resident for its failures in providing the roof report of £100. The total compensation should therefore be £150.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident made a complaint to the landlord mid-August 2022 via its web channel. This was about the landlord’s failure to provide her with the requested maintenance reports. The landlord did not receive the resident’s request due to a technical issue with its website. At the end of August 2022, it did however recognise this failure and apologised to the resident. The landlord said it would look into the matter and the two information requests would be dealt with as separate complaints.
  2. It is of concern that the landlord did not register the resident’s complaint about her request for a copy of the legionnaire report until 2 months later (mid-October 2022). This delay was unreasonable and outside of the landlord’s complaint’s policy to provide a response within 20 working days. The landlord did however recognise its failure and offered the resident £100 compensation for its delayed response. 
  3. The resident escalated her complaint about the landlord’s failure to provide her with a copy of the legionnaire report in mid-October 2022 and the landlord sent its complaint response in mid-November 2022. However, it does not appear the landlord recorded this escalation as part of stage 2 of its complaint process, as late in December 2022, the resident chased the landlord and requested a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord did respond, but it is unclear when it sent its complaint response as the letter is not dated.
  4. In the meantime, the resident had to chase up the landlord for a response to her complaint about a copy of the roof report. The landlord did eventually provide its complaint response early March 2023 (6 months later). This was inappropriate; it caused the resident additional time and trouble of having to chase the landlord for a complaint response.
  5. The landlord did acknowledge its confusion about the requested information and it apologised to the resident. The landlord offered her £75 compensation for its poor complaint handling and £75 for her time and trouble.
  6. When the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response late April 2023 about her request for a copy of the roof maintenance report, it offered the resident an additional £50 compensation in recognition of its complaint handling failures. The total compensation the landlord had now offered the resident was £300.
  7. In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling was confusing and did not provide the resident with a customer centric approach. While the landlord can choose to split its complaints and provide separate responses, in this instance it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to coordinate one complaint response given they were about the resident’s request for information. Despite the information falling within different landlord teams, the landlord should be able to effectively coordinate one response to such requests to avoid confusion for the resident. 
  8. The landlord failed to handle the resident’s complaint request promptly. It delayed in registering and responding to the stage 1 complaint about the legionnaire report by 2 months. The landlord appeared to be confused with the resident’s escalation request. The latter complaint response was not dated and therefore it is unclear when the resident received this response. The impact of these delays caused the resident unnecessary chase ups to the landlord. The landlord did however recognise its failure and offered the resident £100 compensation in its handling of the resident’s complaint about the legionnaire report. 
  9. The landlord did recognise its failure in handling the resident’s request for a copy of the roof report and offered her a total of £200 compensation. This went some way to put things right for the resident in recognition of the prolonged delays she had experienced. However, the overall confusion in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the delay in registering the complaints, its failure to provide complaint responses within target, its lack of proactive communication with the resident and poor coordination of the two complaints has resulted in considerable impact, inconvenience, time and trouble in the resident chasing the landlord for a response. It is therefore more appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident £400 compensation to reflect its complaint handling failures. This amount of compensation is aligned to the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the way the landlord handled the resident’s request for a copy of the maintenance reports.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord delayed over a prolonged period in providing a copy of maintenance reports to the resident.
  2. The landlord failed to handle the resident’s complaint promptly. It failed to coordinate the complaints effectively and it was not proactive in its communications to the resident. This caused considerable impact on the resident through her inconvenience, time and trouble in chasing up the landlord on many occasions. The landlord did however offer the resident a total of £300 compensation for its recognised failure in complaint handling. While the landlord’s compensation offer mitigated its failures, the landlord did not address is failure to provide the resident with a coordinated customer centric complaint handling experience.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, for the landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified within this report.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £550 (including the £350 it had already offered the resident if it had not already done so).
  3. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord is to review its complaint handling of this case and advise this Service how it intends to improve. Particular emphasis should be on how it can improve its complaint handling where there are multiple complaints.
  4. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.