Peabody Trust (202302269)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302269

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The decant process.
2. The level of redress awarded.
The Ombudsman has also looked at the complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupied a four-bedroom flat under an assured tenancy agreement that began on 28 November 2011. The resident has three dependent children in the household and two adult children. The landlord said it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded on its system. The resident explained that she suffers from depression.
The landlord said because of fire safety concerns in the resident’s block of flats, the resident needed to move into temporary accommodation. The resident moved into a decant property on 12 March 2021. The landlord offered the resident a “permanent move package” of compensation to be rehoused into alternative permanent accommodation, which the resident accepted. The resident accepted a permanent offer of alternative accommodation on or around 20 July 2023. The resident and her younger children were decanted together, but the older children were offered separate temporary accommodation.
The resident said that when she was decanted, the landlord failed to carry out a needs assessment and offered her unsuitable properties. The landlord said it should have done more to ensure that it catered for the resident’s needs within a reasonable time.
The resident gave permission on 25 July 2021 for the landlord to speak with her daughter about her accommodation. On 24 August 2022, the resident’s daughter gave permission on behalf of the resident for the household belongings to go into storage. On or around 3 October, the landlord arranged for the resident’s belongings to be placed into storage. The landlord said the resident’s son was present when the removals company attended but left before it completed the job.
The resident raised a complaint on 23 March 2023. She said that she was unhappy that the landlord had placed her items in storage without her consent or supervision. She also said she was unhappy that it had changed the locks at her property because she was still paying rent at a property she could not access.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 April 2023. It said:
1. It was sorry that the storing of the resident’s belongings “did not go smoothly.” However, it had communicated with the resident throughout the discussions about the storage.
2. All the resident’s belongings needed to be stored to enable investigations and repairs to the property and all homes that were affected. It had liaised with the resident and her daughter during this time, and the resident’s daughter had agreed to allow the landlord to store the family’s possessions.
3. The resident’s son was present when the items were taken from the property to be stored, but he did not stay until the end of the removal.
4. It had changed the locks to prevent access because of health and safety issues, however, it could arrange accompanied visits if necessary.
5. It offered her £100 for the anxiety caused by storing her items without a member of the family present.
The resident escalated her complaint on 16 May 2023. She said:
1. She was unhappy with the stage 1 response because it did not address all the issues she raised.
2. She was unhappy with the process during the decant because it was short notice, and she felt the landlord should have assessed her needs because her mental health was poor.
3. She was told she would only be decanted for 3-6 months but her family were separated for 2 years. She said if she had known it would take as long to be rehoused, she would not have accepted it. This had impacted her children and their upbringing.
4. She was unhappy that the landlord had taken her belongings into storage without supervision.
5. She was unhappy the landlord changed the locks without formal communication.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 June 2023. It apologised to her and offered her £600 because it said there had been service failures for:
1. The management of her alternative accommodation needs, including the lack of suitable accommodations offered to the resident.
2. The experience the resident had when it had stored her belongings.
3. It had delayed in issuing its stage 1 response.
The resident told the Ombudsman she is seeking the following outcomes:
1. To be rehoused urgently out of her decant property.
2. For the landlord to provide increased compensation because she said the payment offered to her was less than other families and the statutory minimum for home loss payments.
3. To have her possessions that were damaged during the storage process to be compensated for.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies

The landlord’s vulnerable persons policy states that it defines vulnerability as follows “being any condition or circumstance that puts an individual or household at risk of losing their home, or any situation which, without support or intervention, places them at risk of abuse, neglect or causes detriment to their overall wellbeing.”
The landlord’s decant policy states:
1. It will make the final decision about whether to rehouse residents during works, and it will consider the needs of the household in doing this.
2. It will ensure the process is as easy as possible by providing residents with appropriate support, particularly for those most vulnerable, providing clear information on their housing options in all circumstances.
3. It will keep residents informed on the progress of the works in their homes.
4. Residents will be unable to access their home whilst works are in progress without prior appointment and permission.
5. The provision of temporary or alternative accommodation requires residents to leave their belongings in their homes or use external storage. In either event, it retains the responsibility to protect the items which it does by using a reputable storage company where it will pay for the removal and storage of the resident’s possessions.
6. To secure homes whilst residents temporarily move and facilitate works taking place it will always change the locks during the period of the move. It will refit the original locks before residents return home.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant

The resident told the Ombudsman that the following issues had caused her the greatest concern:
1. The landlord did not take into consideration her health needs when it offered her a decant property.
2. At the time of the complaint, the resident said her eldest children were temporarily accommodated separately and this has lasted for 2 years. She said the separation had impacted the upbringing of her children.
3. The landlord had taken her personal belongings into storage without supervision and some of her possessions were damaged.
4. The landlord changed the locks without notice.
There is no evidence of the landlord conducting an assessment to ascertain the resident’s needs before decanting her. The landlord recognised its failure because it acknowledged it could have done more. It also factored this into its offer of compensation. The Ombudsman considers that this was reasonable redress for this element of the resident’s complaint.
The resident said that her family had been separated for 2 years, and this had impacted the upbringing of her children.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident had agreed with the landlord that the future household needs were that her two adult children would require rehousing separately from her. Therefore, whilst the Ombudsman considers that the separation during the decant process was undesirable for the resident, it was the intention of the household to be separated as a long-term outcome. Therefore, the Ombudsman can find no fault with the response of the landlord for this element of the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of alternative permanent rehousing. This meant she would not be returning to the original property. The landlord offered the resident a new tenancy which began on or around 29 July 2023.
Whilst the resident was in temporary accommodation there is evidence the landlord:
1. Offered a 12-month fixed agreement for the temporary accommodation to mitigate the uncertainty and any disruption on the resident because it was unable to give a timeframe for when the resident could return home.
2. Provided the resident with written communication on 18 March 2021 and 16 December 2021, stating that it did not know how long the repairs would take however the building owner was looking into the fabric of the property and would be creating a programme of works that it would review in due course.
3. Throughout the time she was decanted, it carried out regular reviews of the resident’s move on its system.
4. Regularly monitored where both the resident and her adult children were placed on its internal transfer list when they were approaching the top of shortlists for properties being advertised.
5. Provided updates to the resident and each separate adult child of any shortlists for properties where they had placed in the top three.
6. Provided guidance on how to bid for properties on its list and that if the resident widened her areas of preference, it would mean she would likely be rehoused sooner. It considered its discretion to offer an alternative permanent move and updated the resident’s priority standing on its internal list on 30 September 2022
7. Offered the resident £10,000 and assistance with moving costs to relocate to an alternative permanent property.
8. Agreed to the resident’s preference to split the household up to allow for the resident’s adult children to be rehoused separately.
9. Agreed on an alternative permanent move and priority standing on its internal list on 30 September 2022.
10. Rehoused the resident’s adult children into the size of accommodation requested.
The Ombudsman empathises with the resident as she was in temporary accommodation for over 2 years at the time of the complaint. This was not ideal and in of itself would have been a difficult situation for the resident. However, for the reasons above, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that the landlord acted reasonably whilst the resident was in decant accommodation in line with its decant policy. This is because it offered updates on the progress of the property redevelopment works, advice and guidance on how the resident could help the process by bidding for herself on the system and tried to mitigate the impact by offering alternative permanent accommodation. It also acted in accordance with its policy to offer permanent rehousing to her having assessed the progress of the investigations at her former property.
The resident said that she had not agreed to her belongings being stored. The landlord said it relied on the instruction of the resident’s daughter, which the resident had permitted. The evidence shows the resident gave permission for her daughter to liaise with the landlord on her behalf about her “accommodation.” In addition, the resident’s daughter provided consent for the storage of the household belongings on her behalf verbally and in writing to the landlord. The landlord then arranged the storage.
After examining the evidence, it was unclear that the resident’s consent extended to allowing her daughter to give consent for the storage of her belongings. This is because the resident’s communications with the landlord repeatedly showed she did not want her belonging to be stored because she wanted to move them straight into the permanent property she was waiting to be allocated. The landlord said that investigations could not start in the resident’s property until it was cleared.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord should have clarified with the resident that she intended to allow her belongings to be stored, given her communication that she did not want this to happen. It could then have explained because of the extent of the investigations required its only recourse was to store the resident’s belongings elsewhere and that this was in line with its policy. The Ombudsman considers the landlord could have done more to communicate effectively with the resident about its policy to store belongings in certain situations and this was a service failure.
The storage contractor continued to store the resident’s items without supervision after it had removed them. The landlord did not dispute this and found there was a service failure with the way it handled this. It said this was because the contractor had continued to store the items without notifying it that there was nobody present. It said it had worked together with the contractor to ensure that if this situation recurred, it would inform the landlord and cancel the job if nobody could be present. It also factored this failure into its offer of compensation and offered to pay for the resident to travel to and from the storage facility to collect any items she required. The Ombudsman considers this was reasonable redress for this element of the resident’s complaint.
The resident said that when her belongings were in storage, they were damaged. The landlord responded by asking the resident to provide a list of items so that it could have a chance to consider this. It is unclear if the resident has provided a list at to the landlord at this stage. The Ombudsman considers the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns and recommends the resident provide the landlord with a list of any damaged items so that the landlord may assess whether it can offer further redress.
The resident said the landlord changed the locks at her property without notice. She said she felt the landlord’s actions showed a lack of respect and consideration. She also said that she continued to pay rent for the property so should have had access to the property. The landlord said it changed the locks due to health and safety concerns and that it would arrange to accompany the resident back to the property if this was required.
The landlord had legitimate safety concerns and its policy allowed for it to change the locks. Nevertheless, the landlord ought to have informed the resident that it would prevent access once she was decanted. This was a service failure.

The level of redress awarded

The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 December 2021 and said it would offer her a “permanent move package.” The letter contained some of the following details:
1. The property required further investigative and remedial works before the resident could move back in. This was because the building owner was investigating the fabric of the building which would take legal and regulatory work. It explained this could take several months and it was unsure when the resident could return.
2. To support with the uncertainty of the timeframes it had decided to offer all residents in a decant the offer of moving to a permanent home in their area of choice.
3. It said it would compensate for the loss and inconvenience of this by giving £10,000 which was designed to help residents settle into their new home. It made the point this was not something it had to offer as the residents did not need to move but felt it was right to do so.
4. It stated that if the resident’s rent account were in arrears, it would collect the arrears from the payment due.
5. Once the resident accepted the offer, it would pay the money into the resident’s bank account.
6. It asked the resident to let it know if any households preferred to be split into smaller-sized homes when moving. If any households preferred to be split into smaller-sized homes when moving, the resident should notify it and it would then split the payment evenly across the new tenancies once they had been signed.
The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of a permanent move package. When the resident moved into her alternative permanent property, the landlord deducted her rent arrears from the sum it was due to pay her under its permanent move package. The resident disputed this because the sum paid to her was below the statutory minimum for a home loss payment.
The Ombudsman considers that the resident accepted the agreement to accept the payment less any rent arrears. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers the landlord acted in line with the terms of the agreement and cannot find fault with its decision to do this. Even if it was only required to pay a home loss payment, the landlord may have been able to deduct rent arrears from this also.
Separately the landlord offered the resident a total of £750 in compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience and its complaint handling during its complaints procedure. It also said:
1. It should have done more to cater for the needs of the resident within a reasonable time when it decanted her.
2. As a result of the resident’s complaint, it had strengthened procedures and increased emphasis on training to align its approach with the rest of the organisation.
3. It had made recommendations to the repair and alternative accommodation service to ensure customers’ concerns are heard and acted on in a meaningful way.
4. It would review its current major works processes to ensure it kept time spent by residents in temporary accommodation to a minimum and to mitigate inconvenience to them.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord acknowledged its failures and tried to put things right. However, it did not take into account the following failures and their impact on the resident:
1. It did not effectively communicate with the resident about the storage of her belongings.
2. It failed to demonstrate it communicated its intentions to change the locks and the reasons behind this before doing so.
On this basis the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer of compensation did not fully address its failures and this was a service failure.

Complaint handling

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states:
1. Landlords must issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged.
2. Landlords must issue a final response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.

The landlord’s complaint policy replicates these timescales.

The landlord’s issued its complaint responses as follows:
1. 21 working days after the resident raised their complaint at stage 1. This was 11 working days outside of its policy timeframes and the Code.
2. 20 working days after the resident’s escalation request at stage 2. This was in line with the Code and its policy.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it had delayed in its complaint handling at stage 1 of its complaints process. It factored this into its compensation payment, apologised, and explained it was restructuring its complaints department to centralise the process and handle complaints more effectively. The Ombudsman considers the landlord responded reasonably to address the detriment to the resident for its delay.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The decant process.
2. The level of redress offered.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered to the resident before the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by:
  1. Failing to communicate effectively about the storage of the resident’s belongings.
  2. Failing to communicate with the resident effectively about its intention to change the locks at her property.
2. Provide evidence of compliance with the orders of this service.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends:
1. The landlord considers the use of a declaration template that sets out the scope of any delegation of residents for the use of a third party to speak and/or act on their behalf. This is so that the intentions of residents are clear and captured. This would support the landlord in ensuring the landlord proactively seeks and records consent properly.
2. The landlord provides the resident with guidance and support about home loss payments including if she is likely to meet the criteria.