Peabody Trust (202233489)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233489

Peabody Trust

13 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Requests for her housing transfer to be expedited.
2. Associated complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She lives in the 2-bedroom property with her 3 children. The resident made 3 complaints to the landlord with regards her housing transfer, all of which are the subject of this investigation.
In 2022 the resident was assigned priority for a housing transfer on medical grounds and was eligible to bid via the landlord’s lettings system. This was due to overcrowding and the impact this was having on the family’s wellbeing.
The resident complained to the landlord on 2 February 2023, asking for help and guidance in expediting her housing transfer. She said the lack of space was causing major strain on the mental health of her and her eldest daughter and affecting every aspect of the family’s life. She explained the limited space was causing chaos in the home, which made it difficult to complete homework and support her daughter with learning. She felt she was failing her children, expressed fear her daughter would harm herself, and said she was unable to cope. She said she had made numerous attempts to contact the landlord, but it never returned her calls, and she felt no one was listening to her. She queried whether the family may be eligible for a management transfer.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 February 2023, when it apologised that it had been unresponsive. It explained there were 300 residents on the transfer list with medical priority and recommended that she explore mutual exchange as a means of expediting her move.
The resident escalated the complaint, and the landlord provided its final response on 23 March 2023. It acknowledged that its communication had been poor and that she had been inconvenienced in having to purse her concerns, for which it offered £100 compensation. It offered a further £125 for complaint handling failures, including the delay in responding and its failure to address all complaint points in its stage 1 response. It explained that a management transfer was not applicable.
The resident made a second complaint on 20 August 2023, citing ongoing poor communication from the landlord and its failure to consider her for a management transfer. The landlord responded on 8 September 2023, stating that she had the correct priority and a management transfer was not appropriate to her circumstances.
The resident escalated the complaint, and the landlord issued its final response on 23 November 2023. Again, it apologised for failings in its communication and complaint handling, acknowledging that the complaint had not been fully addressed. It offered the resident £600 compensation in recognition of these failings and said her case would be reviewed at its Priority Move Panel (PMP) to decide upon her eligibility for a management transfer.
The resident made a third complaint the same day. She said the landlord had sent her a copy of an internal email, in which she felt she had been spoken about in a derogatory way. The officer who had handled her first 2 complaints at stage 1 had commented ‘do I have to keep doing this’, when approached for information following the resident’s escalation of her second complaint.
The resident’s case was scheduled for discussion at the PMP in mid-January 2024 but was withdrawn by the panel prior to being heard. The resident was upset to learn that the officer she had complained about had confirmed to the panel that she did not meet the criteria.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response to the resident’s third complaint on 19 January 2024. It acknowledged the comments made by the officer were unnecessary and insensitive and had resulted in the resident having concerns about their ability to consider her case impartially. It awarded £50 for complaint handling failures and a ‘discretionary’ £25.
The resident escalated the complaint on 24 January 2024 and the final response was issued on 25 March 2024. The landlord apologised for the distress it had caused but said it was satisfied with the response provided at stage 1. It acknowledged the delays in its complaint handling, for which it awarded a further £300 compensation. This brought the total compensation to £1200, which has been paid to the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s records show the resident contacted it a number of times to ask for help and guidance about how she could progress a move. The case notes show the resident called on 25 and 30 January 2023, expressing frustration that she had previously requested call backs to no avail. Consequently, she complained on 2 February 2023, stating she did not feel listened to. She called a further time on 8 February 2023, again asking that her call be returned. Requests were made for the relevant team to contact her, but there is no evidence they did, and she was only responded to by way of the formal stage 1 response on 20 February 2023.
The resident had been clear about the impact her housing situation was having on her family, throughout her correspondence and in her complaint, stating she felt unable to cope. The lack of communication implied a lack of care, which added to the resident’s distress and caused mounting frustration. The landlord went some way to addressing its poor communication in its complaint response. It apologised that it had not responded to her enquiries, which it attributed to a backlog within the medical team. However, it could have acknowledged the frustration this had caused and offered compensation for the time and trouble. It said a medical officer would contact her, but it is not clear whether they subsequently did.
In its response, the landlord advised the resident she could hasten her transfer by using mutual exchange but did not address her query that she may be eligible for a management transfer. The landlord manages its housing allocations according to priority needs under its lettings and rehousing policies. Residents wishing to transfer to another property within the landlord’s portfolio are awarded points according to their priority, with which they can bid for properties under its letting system.
Residents who meet certain criteria may be offered a property via a route known as a management transfer, which can be a quicker means of securing a move. Alternatively, a mutual exchange is where social housing tenants swap homes by exchanging tenancies with each other. While it was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident of mutual exchange as an additional option to expedite her move, it should have directly addressed whether she was eligible for a management transfer.
The resident made a further query about her eligibility for a management transfer after the complaint response. Within its internal correspondence, the complaint handler said she had advised the resident this was unlikely to expedite her situation. She also said that she did not pursue the resident’s enquiry, or refer the matter to the neighbourhood team who deals with such requests, as the resident escalated her complaint. Given this officer was from the rehousing team and had knowledge of the resident’s circumstances and the process, it was appropriate for her to make the referral to the relevant team, or at least provide clarity to the resident on eligibility and the process. This presented another missed opportunity to directly address the resident’s query.
The issue was considered and responded to at stage 2 and an apology was appropriately made for previously failing to respond to her request about this. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that the stage 2 complaint handler made enquiries about the resident’s eligibility for a management transfer. He was directed to the neighbourhood team, which said this option was reserved for high-level antisocial behaviour and domestic abuse cases and was, therefore, not applicable in this case. This information was then conveyed to the resident in the stage 2 response.
Within the response, the landlord also acknowledged that there had been failings in its communication, for which it offered £100 and said this would be addressed as part of its ‘learnings strategy’. While it came late, this constituted appropriate redress, made in recognition of the frustration and distress caused by its failure to respond to the resident.
The resident contested the landlord’s position with regards her eligibility for a management transfer, noting that, according to its rehousing policy, she met the criteria. The landlord’s rehousing policy states that a management transfer may be applicable for those ‘who need to move due to violence, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, harassment or hate crime’, which aligns with the criteria stated in its complaint response. However, in its policy, it goes on to say it ‘may also consider exceptional needs such as social, educational or economic circumstances’. While it is acknowledged that the landlord has discretion here, it is understandable that the resident did not consider the position it outlined in its complaint response to be accurate and fully reflective of its policy.
This resulted in the resident making a second complaint to the landlord. In its complaint response the landlord reiterated that the resident was not eligible and explained that management transfers were awarded where there was a risk to life or severe repair issues. She, again, felt the landlord was moving the goal posts. This Service agrees that the response did not accurately reflect the policy criteria, which was wider.
The resident was clear about the impact the housing situation was having on the family and how she felt they met the criteria for exceptional social and educational circumstances. The landlord did not sufficiently acknowledge the difficulties she had outlined and should have clearly explained why it considered she did not meet these criteria.
There was also confusion about the process for requesting a management transfer, including who was responsible for assessing this. In her second complaint, the resident said she had been told it was the responsibility of the neighbourhood manager to decide whether a case met the criteria and to recommend that it was heard at the PMP. She said her neighbourhood manager had failed to inform her of this, despite many conversations with them about how her housing situation was affecting the family. She said she had since been advised by customer services that the neighbourhood manager would visit and assess her home, but they had not done so.
There are no records evidencing these conversations, but this Service does not dispute the resident’s account and appreciates that the lack of transparency around the process was frustrating for her. The approach was also inconsistent, given that, in the complaint responses, she had been told that she did not meet the criteria.
Following the resident’s escalation request, the neighbourhood manager visited and recommended that, due to the resident and her children being ‘unable to progress socially’, they ‘firmly’ believed her case should be heard at PMP and that she needed to be moved as soon as possible. The stage 2 response also confirmed that the eligibility criteria were met and the case would be considered at panel. This suggested the landlord was hasty in its earlier position regarding her ineligibility, and that the neighbourhood manager should have visited the home at an earlier juncture.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord also apologised for its ongoing poor communication, acknowledging that it had not returned calls and she had received no further contact after being told the neighbourhood team would look into matters for her. The records show the resident had contacted the landlord on a number of occasions following the complaint response on 23 March 2023, asking that it reconsider her management transfer request.
While the landlord made some internal enquiries, there is little evidence that it responded to the resident, other than to send an information letter on her housing options. She felt this did not address her request, which was to discuss the particulars of her circumstances. That the landlord acknowledged and compensated the resident for its poor communication was appropriate, albeit late, having failed to do so in its stage 1 response.
Following the complaint response, the resident continued to chase the landlord for an update regarding the panel hearing. The correspondence shows she contacted the landlord on 24 and 28 November 2023, stating she had received no response from the neighbourhood manager. On 11 December 2023 she was told the neighbourhood manager would contact her, but it is not clear whether it did. She sent a further 2 emails on 19 and 28 December 2023, following which the neighbourhood manager said they would chase the panel for an update. On 3 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and reminded it that, as per its complaints policy, it was responsible for monitoring progress on the agreed outcomes and for keeping her updated.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord is likely to have had other priority cases to hear, and progress may have been impacted due to the holiday period. However, the landlord should have managed the resident’s expectations about when the case would be heard and was not appropriately responsive in that regard.
In a further development, the question of eligibility was raised again, this time by the panel. They withdrew the case on 12 January 2024, several days before it was due to be heard, stating that it did not meet the criteria. This was to the extreme disappointment of the resident. The landlord had confirmed, in its final response, that the eligibility criteria were met and the case would be heard. It was a failing of the landlord to mismanage her expectations in this way and demonstrated further inconsistency in the process.
The resident’s disappointment was exacerbated upon learning that the officer, who was the subject of her third complaint, had been consulted by the panel with regards her eligibility. The resident had spoken to the complaint handler for her third complaint, on 16 January 2024, who had assured her that this officer would not have any further involvement. In its response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that they had been consulted, but maintained the feedback they had given to the panel was accurate and the resident was not eligible. It assured that, going forward, the officer would have no further involvement, even in an advisory capacity.
While the resident’s distress at the officer’s involvement is understandable, the correspondence suggests the officer was consulted for ‘confirmation’ she was ineligible, and was not solely responsible for the decision. It is also noted that the officer was consulted prior to the complaint handler’s discussion with the resident, in which it assured they would no longer be involved. However, given the resident had complained about this officer on 23 November 2023, and had expressed concern about their ability to consider her case impartially, it was not appropriate that she had input. The landlord should be mindful of this when dealing with future complaints about members of staff.
Overall, there was inconsistency in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer, with different officers and teams imparting different information around eligibility and the process that would be followed. Underpinning this was a lack of engagement with the resident in response to her enquiries. These failings were to the detriment of the resident, who felt unheard, frustrated, and lost confidence in the landlord to act fairly and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The landlord went some way in acknowledging its failings in its complaint responses, offering apologies and compensation totalling £425. This was largely awarded for failures in its communication, which it acknowledged had been poor in all 3 final responses. It was a generous offer which awarded appropriate financial recompense for the detriment caused.
In consideration of both the remedies taken by the landlord, and the further action that is needed to address the identified failings, the Ombudsman has made an overall finding of service failure.
For mismanaging the resident’s expectations and its failure to directly address the question of her eligibility, as well as the inconsistencies in its position on this, the landlord should write a letter of apology to the resident. It should assess whether there is a discrepancy between its policy and practice with regards eligibility criteria and consider providing further detail within its policy. It should also make sure staff are clear on the process to be followed when considering management transfers.
Following the first complaint, the landlord said its communication failures would be addressed as part of its ‘learning strategy’. The landlord should ensure that it follows through on this and shares details of the ongoing failures identified in this case.

Complaint handling

The resident’s first complaint was responded to after 12 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy states complaints must be responded to within 10 working days. This constituted a small delay which, although not significant, should have been acknowledged in the response and the resident should have been informed of this in advance. The landlord’s complaints procedure, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), outlines that if it needs more time, it should provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received.
The response did not address all the resident’s concerns, including her enquiry that she may be eligible for a management transfer. The landlord’s procedure and the Code require that it address all points raised in a complaint, so this was a further failing.
The landlord’s policy also states that a response at stage 2 must be provided within 20 working days of the request being received. It is assumed the resident escalated the complaint the following day, on 21 February 2023, as the landlord acknowledged the request on 27 February 2023, and informed her a response was due by 21 March 2023. The stage 2 response came 2 days late on 23 March 2023. This was to the frustration of the resident who had to chase the landlord for the response. It confirmed it had extended the date but had not informed her of this. Again, while this was not a significant delay, it failed for a second time to inform the resident that it required an extension.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the slight delay and acknowledged that its initial response had not been appropriately detailed or addressed all her concerns, for which it offered £125 compensation. It provided a more detailed account of how it had failed to respond to her enquiries and assured her it would recommend that staff reviewed the complaint process and procedures to help them to be mindful of the importance of maintaining adequate communication with residents. This was an appropriate response, with proportionate and targeted measures of redress.
However, the same issues presented with regards the resident’s second complaint. The initial response came 13 working days from the date the complaint was made, and 12 working days from the date of acknowledgement. Again, while this was only a slight delay, there is no evidence she was informed and the landlord did not acknowledge this in its response.
It also acknowledged her escalation request a day late, after 6 days, on 18 September 2023. The landlord’s policy, in line with the Code, requires that complaints be acknowledged within 5 working days.
More significantly, the final response came 48 working days later. The landlord notified the resident on 13 October 2023 that it required a further 10 days, but it was another month before the response was issued. The records show that throughout this period the resident chased the complaint handler for an update and to request a copy of the complaints policy. There is no evidence the landlord responded.
Again, in its final response, the landlord acknowledged the delay, which it attributed to staff sickness and leave, and said it recognised it had let the resident down. It said it had changed the way it monitored complaints, with more staff and management employed to ensure cases are logged, escalated and responded to on time at each stage. It also accepted that the initial response had not addressed all her complaint points. For this, it offered compensation of £300, in recognition of what is deemed to be its ‘severe failure’. This was a generous offer, and it gave appropriate reassurance that measures were being taken to address delays.
It is noted that the inadequate stage 1 responses for both the complaints were handled by the same officer. This indicated the issues had not been sufficiently addressed with the handler the first time. While, in its second final response, the landlord said identified failings had been ‘fed back’, the Ombudsman recommends that further measures are taken to ensure staff are clear on complaint handling requirements, according to the landlord’s policy and the Code.
This complaint handler was also the subject of the resident’s third complaint. In its email acknowledging the escalation of her second complaint, the landlord accidentally attached internal correspondence in which the complaint handler had expressed disapproval at having to respond to a further complaint about the resident’s housing needs. The resident described how this made her feel uncomfortable and belittled, and put her off making a further complaint.
The landlord addressed this in its complaint response, acknowledging that the comments were unnecessary and insensitive and did not reflect its values. However, the opinions were also described as not ‘overtly offensive’. The level of offence caused by a situation is highly subjective, so it was not appropriate that the landlord said this, and it caused distress to the resident who felt her concerns had been minimised.
The initial response to the resident’s third complaint came 36 working days from the date of acknowledgement. The complaint handler apologised for this delay and noted it had tried to contact her by phone throughout December 2023 but had been unable to reach her. Given the response was overdue, and the resident emailed on 13 and 28 December 2023, asking for an update, it would have been appropriate for the complaint handler to try other means of contact, such as email.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 January 2024, but it was subject to further delays. The resident sent her request to the officer that had issued her stage 1 complaint, who on 9 February 2024, following a query from the resident, noted there was a backlog of cases but said she should hear from the complaints team by the end of the month. However, it was not until 11 March 2024, after 33 working days, that the complaints team acknowledged and logged it. The acknowledgement came following an email the resident sent to the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer, stating that the complaint was overdue and her queries about this were going unanswered.
In its final response, which came 9 working days later, the landlord apologised for the delays across both stages and provided a further £300 in compensation. This was in addition to the £50 it had offered in its initial response. It reiterated the same measures it had outlined in its final response to the second complaint, to tackle complaint handling delays. This offered less assurance, given the response times and communication had remained poor.
Overall, there were repeat failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. It compounded the resident’s frustration that the lack of communication, with regards her transfer request, extended to her complaints about this, and undermined her faith and trust in the landlord.
Altogether, the landlord paid the resident £775 for its complaint handling failures. This is a significant sum and appropriate financial remedy for the detriment caused, in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and this Service’s guidance. However, the landlord must do more to ensure these issues are not perpetuated. In consideration of this, a finding of service failure has been made.
As a minimum, it must improve communication within its complaint handling, particularly with regards acknowledging complaints and explaining when and why it requires an extension. This is to ensure the resident’s expectations are managed and to afford due respect. It is noted that the landlord recommended action to this affect in its final response to the first complaint, however, the issues clearly persisted.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states ‘complaints management training’ is provided to all staff responsible for handling complaints. The landlord should review its training program and deliver a refresher to all staff, covering the issues identified in this report. This should include the importance of good communication, and of being respectful of resident’s experiences, which should be reflected in its complaint responses and correspondence.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Requests for her housing transfer to be expedited.
2. Associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Write a letter of apology to the resident for inconsistencies and a lack of clarity with regards her eligibility for a management transfer, and for resultingly mismanaging her expectations.
2. Assess whether there is a discrepancy between its policy and practice with regards eligibility criteria and consider providing further detail within its policy. It should also make sure staff are clear on the process to be followed when considering management transfers.
3. Ensure that the communication failures within this case are shared with the Resolution Improvement Manager for the purposes of the ‘Learning Strategy’.
4. Review its complaint handling training program and ensure it encompasses the issues identified in this report. It should ensure staff understand complaint handling requirements and best practice, with reference to the Code and its internal complaints policies and procedures. It should also emphasise the importance of respect and empathy in its approach to residents’ complaints and the importance of maintaining adequate communication.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:
1. Review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights, and consider its recommendations.
2. Assess and establish appropriate boundaries when a complaint is made about a member of staff, with regards their ongoing involvement in the resident’s case. The Ombudsman appreciates it is not always proportionate or possible that they have no further involvement, and this should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.