Peabody Trust (202223647)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223647

Peabody Trust

29 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of issues with the concierge service.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of the property with the landlord, under a lease dated 29 October 2021. The property is a flat in a new-build block. The block also holds privately owned properties. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
A property management company (PMC) handles the delivery of some services to residents, including concierge and a mail delivery facility. The landlord said its residents, via service charges, do not pay for the same services as private owners. The PMC is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme therefore, this report will only consider the actions taken by the landlord.
On 2 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and said she was not receiving the level of service from the concierge staff that she believed she was paying for. The landlord contacted the PMC that same day and requested clarity on which services it provided to its residents via service charge payments.
On 6 December 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord in which she said:
1. The concierge team were withholding mail and parcels, even though she had asked for her mail at the concierge desk. The resident said there had been delays in receiving mail because of this. The resident asked for the concierge staff to hand over her mail when she visited the desk.
2. The concierge team did not allow external deliveries to be made to the resident’s front door. The resident asked the concierge team not to prevent paid delivery personnel from delivering items to her door.
3. The concierge team did not call the resident to announce when there were visitors for her. The resident asked the concierge staff to announce visitors when they arrived.
4. She was unhappy with the conduct of some of the concierge staff.
On 7 December 2022, the PMC sent a response to the landlord which confirmed that shared ownership residents did not pay through service charges for:
1. Parcel deliveries to their properties by concierge staff. The PMC said that the landlord’s residents must collect their mail and parcels from the concierge desk.
2. Concierge staff would not call residents’ properties to alert them to their visitors. The PMC said that the landlord’s residents must meet their visitors in the reception area. The concierge staff would also ask visitors to call residents.
The PMC asked the landlord to communicate the above information to the resident. The PMC also said there had been “unpleasant exchanges” between the resident and its concierge staff. The PMC contacted the landlord again on 22 December 2022 and said that the resident was continuing to send emails requesting that the concierge staff provide services that she was not paying for.
On 5 January 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and confirmed what services she was entitled to through her service charge payments.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 9 January 2023. It explained:
1. It would discuss the issues with the PMC about paid deliveries from external companies to the resident’s door. The landlord said it would communicate the response to the resident.
2. It had investigated the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the concierge staff. The landlord said there had been counter-allegations against the resident about her behaviour towards staff. The landlord said it could not determine who was at fault, but it asked the resident to contact it if there were any further issues.
3. The resident’s service charge payments did not include the concierge staff delivering parcels and mail to her door or alerting her when visitors had arrived. It confirmed that some private residents paid for these services. However, this was not included under the terms of the resident’s lease agreement. The landlord explained it could enquire with other residents about visitor announcements, and whether they would be willing to pay an additional charge for this.
4. It had offered the resident £25 compensation due to delays in issuing its stage 1 response.
On the same date, the resident emailed the landlord and said:
1. All properties had a working intercom to communicate with the concierge staff.
2. When she first moved into the property, the concierge staff would announce when visitors had arrived.
3. She paid a service charge for “telephone and communication equipment”, “security” and “management staff”.
4. The announcement of visitors should be a basic service and not a luxury service.
On 13 January 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
On 8 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it said:
1. The property was part of a new development with new starter staff. The landlord said at the time, the concierge staff did not mind carrying out extra duties to allow residents to “settle in”, but this was not part of their job description, and the staff had no obligation to continue.
2. It did not have sufficient evidence to support the resident’s allegation that some of the concierge staff were inappropriate, rude or aggressive. The landlord provided the resident with a point of contact to report any future incidents.
3. Any added services would come at an extra cost, and it would need to consult with other shareowners in the block.
4. As part of its investigation, it interviewed the Head of Homeownership (HOH) to understand the services provided by the concierge. The HOH explained what duties the PMC expect of their concierge and reiterated the need for the concierge to be professional.
5. There had been some confusion about the responsibilities of the concierge team. The landlord said while it had since provided clarity about their service, other leaseholders may not agree for additional services to be included in their service charges.
6. When the resident made a complaint, the landlord had passed this to the incorrect team which led to the delay in sending its stage 1 response. The landlord offered an additional £25 compensation for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of the investigation

The resident has informed this service that there were issues regarding parking outside of the building. The resident said that the concierge staff had told a contractor he could not park outside of the building. The resident did not raise issues about parking in her complaint on 6 December 2022.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:
“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made before having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint on 6 December 2022, which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 8 February 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
In correspondence with the landlord, the resident raised dissatisfaction with the PMC and its concierge staff. The PMC is not a social landlord and therefore they are not members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. In accordance with paragraphs 34(a) and 41(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member landlord. As such, we cannot investigate the way the PMC handled matters.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the concierge service

While this service could potentially look at whether a service charge had been calculated correctly, we would not then be able to investigate the level of service charge increase or whether the service charge was value for money. We can assess whether the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably to the concerns the resident raised, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, which this assessment goes on to do.
The landlord has provided details of the service charges payable by the resident between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2021. It confirms that the resident pays the following as part of her service charges:
1. Management staff costs – £37.78
2. Security – £154.76
3. Telephone and communication equipment – £3.05
The resident has provided this service with a copy of a handbook provided by the landlord at the start of the lease. This document outlines details about the property and the block in which it is located. It confirms that the resident has use of a video intercom system which visitors can use to call individual flats. This document does not outline which services the resident will receive from the PMC.

The concierge staff conduct

In the resident’s complaint, she raised concerns about the conduct of the concierge staff. Specifically, she said that some members of the concierge staff were rude and intimidating to her. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters.
When investigating a complaint about a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider the response of the landlord as a whole and will only comment on the actions of individuals in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual.
The Ombudsman understands that the concierge staff are not employed by the landlord. The PMC handles the delivery of some services to residents, including the concierge service. However, the resident pays a service charge for “management staff” costs. It is not clear whether these charges relate to the landlord’s management staff, the PMC or the concierge staff.
As outlined previously, the Ombudsman can only consider the actions taken by the landlord. In this case, the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and explained it did not have sufficient evidence to uphold her complaint. The landlord explained the steps it had taken to investigate the issue and the members of staff it had spoken to. The landlord also advised the resident to report any future incidents to it. The landlord said it would investigate any future incidents with the PMC on the resident’s behalf. While this may have not been the outcome the resident had hoped for, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was reasonable.

The resident’s reports relating to the handling of their post

The resident had previously requested the concierge staff to deliver mail to her property. The landlord said the resident is not entitled to this, as she does not contribute towards the service. The landlord said the resident only contributes to the parcel holding service at the concierge. However, the landlord said the concierge, on occasion, will deliver mail to properties when they can upon their patrols, purely as a courtesy.
From the evidence reviewed by the Ombudsman, a member of staff provided these services outside of their contracted obligations to the resident. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord informed the resident at the start of her lease what services the concierge staff would provide to her.
The resident also said she wants the concierge staff to deliver mail to her upon her request at the reception desk. The resident said she requested mail from the reception desk previously, but the concierge staff did not provide her with the mail, which resulted in delays. The resident said the concierge staff do not deliver her mail when she requests it, despite following the landlord’s request for her to collect her mail from the concierge desk. The resident also said she wants the concierge staff to stop preventing external delivery personnel from taking large parcels to her property.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would investigate the reason as to why the concierge staff had prevented delivery personnel from delivering parcels to the resident’s property. However, there is no evidence that the landlord provided follow-up communication to the resident about this issue until 4 April 2023. The landlord said the concierge staff did not allow delivery of parcels to the resident’s property as it was a potential health and safety concern if the delivery personnel left the parcels in hallways or walkways.
While the landlord was entitled to come to that decision based on the information it had received from the PMC, this was almost 3 months after the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It also appears that the landlord only communicated with the resident about the issue after she contacted the landlord first. The delay was therefore unreasonable, and this was a failure in the landlord’s service to the resident.
In addition, the landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns about the concierge staff holding on to mail for extended periods. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it summarised the resident’s concerns, but it did not offer an explanation for the delays or any confirmation that it had investigated the issue with the PMC. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident about this issue in its subsequent correspondence. This was not appropriate.

The visitor announcements

The resident said that when she first moved into the property, she received contact from the concierge service when her visitors arrived. The resident said the concierge staff used to use the intercom system to notify her when visitors arrived at the building. The resident said the concierge staff no longer offer this service and she feels this is a safety risk to her, as she does not know who is trying to contact her or who is arriving in the building.
While the concierge staff are not employed by the landlord, the landlord should have clearly advised the resident what services the concierge staff provided through her service charges. It is therefore understandable that the resident was confused when these services stopped. Had the landlord informed the resident at the start of her lease what the concierge service would provide to her, this would have better managed her expectations.
It was also clear that the landlord itself was not sure what services the concierge staff would provide to its residents. It did seek clarity from the PMC. However, it should have known this information before the resident expressed her dissatisfaction. The landlord’s records confirm that the resident pays for “security” through her service charges. It is not however clear what the term “security” refers to or includes. It is therefore understandable that the resident was confused about what security measures were included in her service charges.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to provide clear information about a charge that is payable. A landlord should also be able to explain its power to claim the charge under the lease.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints procedure states it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. The policy states the landlord will respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 6 December 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 9 January 2023. This was 21 working days later. This was 11 working days more than the timeframe set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord said the delay was due to it passing the complaint to the wrong team.
The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s initial complaint in line with its complaint’s procedure, meant it missed an opportunity to address her concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution to her concerns. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 13 January 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 February 2023. This was 18 working days later and therefore in line with the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord provided its stage 2 response within a reasonable time.
The landlord did not appropriately acknowledge the resident’s complaint about delays in receiving mail from the concierge desk. It summarised the resident’s concerns, but it did not offer a resolution to this particular aspect of her complaint. This was a failure as landlords 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.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. While the landlord has offered some compensation, it failed to put matters right by addressing all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity and taking steps to put things right. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures outlined above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the concierge service.
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

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report.
2. Pay compensation to the resident of £400 broken down as follows:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the concierge service.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The total compensation replaces the compensation offered by the landlord during the complaint procedure. The landlord can reduce the total compensation by any of the £50 already paid to the resident if applicable.

Provide the resident with a response about her concerns that the concierge staff were holding on to mail for extended periods, as per its stage 1 response.
Provide relevant and additional information to the resident (such as a handbook or document) which explains what services she is entitled to through the service charges she pays. The handbook should include a breakdown of the service charges and what each term refers to including a description of the following charges:
1. management staff costs
2. security
3. telephone and communication equipment.

The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its current process regarding informing tenants of the services they are entitled to prior to the start of the tenancy/lease.