Peabody Trust (202305552)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305552

Peabody Trust

1 April 2025

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 response to the resident’s concerns about electrical safety.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat, in a block. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for her.
4. In early 2023 (the exact date is unclear) the landlord started remedial cladding works. This was to replace cladding deemed unsafe to replace it with a material in line with updated safety regulations.
5. The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 24 April 2023. She asked why the landlord was enclosing “live wires” behind the new cladding. She also asked why residents were not consulted about the works. The landlord did not respond to the complaint at the time.
6. Following an intervention from us, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 14 June 2023. It explained that as the remedial works were ongoing it was unable to comment on the “visible wires”, and it had investigated the resident’s concern with its contractor. It said that any exposures of the “fabric of the building” during the remedial cladding works were done within health and safety regulations and there was “no danger to residents”. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint, and offered £100 in compensation for its complaint handing.
7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response, and asked it to take her complaint to stage 2 of its procedure on 14 June 2023. She was concerned that the landlord was enclosing “live wires” in the new cladding, and that there were 2 “exposed wires” outside her front door.
8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 1 August 2023, and said:
   1.  It had investigated her concerns about the wires behind the cladding, and where wires were present behind the cladding they were “clipped to the wall and encapsulated”.
   2. It had completed safety audits with it contractor which had found no concerns.
   3. It had arranged for an additional inspection which confirmed the wiring was “safe”.
   4. It had investigated the resident’s concerns about the exposed wires it found they were “dead” and of “no risk”. It said it would install connector blocks to any of the exposed wires to be “extra safe”.
   5. It apologised for its “poor communication” about the work and that the consultation fell short of her expectations. As costs of the fire safety works were not being passed on to resident’s and its safety was its “primary concern” it did not give the level of consultation it would for other types of works.
   6. It offered £250 in compensation for its poor communication and lack of follow up about the electrical safety issues. It offered £250 in compensation for its complaint handling.
9. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response and asked us to investigate on 8 September 2023. She was concerned about the safety of the electrics and the lack of consultation before the landlord started the remedial cladding works.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about electrical safety

10. The landlord’s electrical safety policy states that it maintains electrical installations in a safe condition and takes account of the “wiring regulations” when managing electrical safety.
11. This investigation has focused on the landlord’s response to the concerns the resident raised about the safety of the wiring. We have considered what actions it took when the resident raised concerns and whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances. We note the resident’s concerns about electrical safety and that she disagreed with the landlord’s findings. However, this Service does not have the expertise to make a determination on whether the electrics were unsafe or not. Rather, we have considered the landlord’s response and whether the actions it took were appropriate.
12. We have seen evidence that the remedial cladding works were ongoing after the landlord issued its final complaint response in August 2023. However, our investigation has focused on the events leading up to the landlord’s final complaint response. As the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to matters that occurred after it final complaint response we have not considered the landlord’s actions after 1 August 2023 within the scope of this investigation. This approach is taken in line with the approach mandated by our Scheme. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of matters after August 2023 she may wish to raised a further complaint with the landlord. We could then investigate if she remained unhappy after exhausting its complaints procedure.
13. The landlord was on notice about the resident’s concerns about the safety of the wiring from 24 April 2023. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord responded to her concerns at the time. This was a failing in its communication about the matter. The resident was evidently distressed about the wiring and had concerns about safety. The landlord’s failure to address her concerns within a reasonable timeframe may have increased the distress she experienced.
14. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to set out its position that it was satisfied the electrics were safe. While reasonable to set out its position the response lacked the appropriate level of detail or explanation. This was inappropriate and the landlord missed an opportunity to show transparency and build trust with the resident. The complaint response failed to apologise for the delayed communication about the matter or acknowledge the distress this caused.
15. When the resident made her stage 2 complaint explaining she was dissatisfied with its explanation the landlord investigated the matter in more detail during July 2023. This was reasonable and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously. We have seen evidence the landlord asked for a detailed explanation about the electrics from its contractor. It also met with the resident to discuss her concerns. This was appropriate in the circumstances. This went some why to putting right its earlier failings, and the lack of transparency in its stage 1 complaint response.
16. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to set out its position in more detail. It offered an explanation on the actions it had taken to investigate the resident’s concerns and set out its position about the health and safety inspections it did. This was appropriate and evidence it sought to address the resident’s concerns in detail, and explain its position that it had no concerns about the safety of the wiring. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
17. We have seen no evidence the landlord shared the findings of its “safety audits” directly with the resident. It is noted that the landlord set out its position following the audits which was appropriate. However, had it shared the findings directly this may have provided further reassurance to the resident and shown greater transparency. We recommend it shares the findings of the safety audits with the resident now.
18. The landlord accepted that its communication about the matter was poor. The evidence we have seen shows that the delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, and overall communication, contributed to the distress and inconvenience the matter caused the resident. Our remedies guidance sets out that an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. The guidance states that the above amounts may be made when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”, depending on the severity of the failing and the impact on the resident. Considering the circumstances of this case we have determined the landlord’s offer of £250 in compensation was appropriate. Its offer put right the errors in its response to the resident’s concerns about electrical safety.

Complaint handling

19. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
20. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response 34 working days after the resident made her initial complaint. This was a failing in its complaint handling, and an unreasonable delay. Its stage 1 complaint response was the first time it had set out its position in any detail. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that its unfair and hard to access complaints process impacted on its handling of the substantive issue. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to seek assistance from us in order to get a response to her complaint. The landlord appropriately apologised, showed learning, and offered financial redress for its poor complaint handling, which we welcome.
21. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response 34 working days after the resident made her stage 2 complaint. This was a further failing in its complaint handling. The resident was, again, further inconvenienced by the need to seek assistance from us in order to get a stage 2 response from the landlord. It is noted that the landlord contacted the resident to explain its stage 2 response would be delayed. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it sought to give an explanation and manage her expectations about when it would respond.             
22. The landlord appropriately apologised for the errors in its complaint handling, and offered an explanation about the cause of the delay. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it showed learning and sought to put things right for the resident. In line with our remedies guidance, as set out above, we have determine the landlord’s offer of £250 in compensation for its complaint handling was appropriate to put things right for the resident.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved its response to the resident’s concerns about electrical safety.
24. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved its complaint handling errors.

Recommendations

25. It is recommended the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident the £250 in compensation it offered for its response to the electrical safety concerns, and the £250 it offered for its complaint handling. (If it has not already done so). Our finding of reasonable redress by the landlord is based on an understanding that this compensation will be paid.
    2. Shares the findings of its “safety audits” at the resident’s property directly with her. This recommendation is made in an attempt to rebuild trust between the resident and landlord, and offer further reassurance about the landlord’s position on the safety of the building.