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

Peabody Trust (202213665)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213665

Peabody Trust

11 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 handling of the resident’s enquiries about fire safety works completed in 2022.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association, since 2015. The property is a house, which is part of a larger block containing houses and flats. The block is 5 storeys high and has a communal roof terrace on the fifth floor. There are stacked balconies for individual properties, located at the back of the block. When the block was built, the balconies and roof terrace had wooden decking, supports and balustrades.
  2. In 2018 there was a fire on one of the stacked balconies. The landlord has said that, following this, it identified the stacked balconies presented a significant risk and action was needed to remove the wooden combustible materials and replace them with non-combustible alternatives. It has confirmed a programme of works was compiled with advice from a fire consultant and completed between June and November 2022.
  3. In May 2022 the landlord sent an update to the resident about the balcony works. It said the roof terrace was not included in the programme. The resident replied that the roof terrace had the same wooden features as the balconies and this was a fire safety risk. He asked for it to be included in the programme. The landlord declined to include the roof terrace as it was not the same as the stacked balconies and replacing the decking on the terrace would be major works.
  4. On 19 September 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He said it had previously told him the roof terrace would be included. He asked why the wood on the terrace was not being replaced when the wooden balconies were.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 12 October 2022 it said the roof terrace did not pose the same risk as the stacked balconies in the event of a fire. It said there was no evidence the roof terrace had ever been included in the programme of works, or that he had been told it was.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 16 October 2022, saying he did not agree with the outcome. He felt the landlord’s decision not to replace the wood on the roof terrace was a fire risk and would be unsightly.
  7. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 16 December 2022 it said the stage 1 response was reasonable and it could not change or widen the scope of the works. It acknowledged there had been service failure in its communication, and a delay in the stage 2 response being sent. It apologised and offered £60 compensation (£30 for communication failures and £30 for complaint handling).
  8. The resident asked us to investigate his complaint in April 2023. He said he had originally been told all combustible materials would be removed from the building, but more recently the landlord said the wood on the top floor and roof would not be replaced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In his complaint, the resident said between 2018 and 2020 the landlord told him the roof terrace would be included as part of the programme of works. We will normally only investigate matters that have occurred 12 months before the resident raised their formal complaint. In this case, the resident raised his complaint in September 2022. In the interests of fairness, we have considered an extended timeframe beyond the 12 months as the landlord did the same in its complaint investigation.

Handling of the resident’s enquiries about fire safety works completed in 2022

  1. When the landlord identified that the stacked balconies posed a significant risk after the fire in 2018, it was reasonable that it was responsible for works to address and minimise the risk. The landlord confirmed it sought advice from a fire consultant regarding the scope of the works. This was sensible and showed it was taking the matter seriously.
  2. The resident has said between 2018 and 2020 the landlord told him the roof terrace would be included as part of the works but had subsequently changed its mind about this. We do not doubt the resident, but we have seen no evidence that he was ever told the roof terrace was part of these works. Therefore, we cannot determine whether the landlord changed its position on this and, if so, whether this was reasonable.
  3. When the resident challenged the landlord’s decision not to include the roof terrace as part of the works in May 2022, it explained the terrace did not pose the same risk as the stacked balconies, because it was on the roof. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s response was reasonable as it was based on expert advice and consideration of risk.
  4. In addition to the fire safety concerns, the resident also raised concerns about how the block would look if the landlord only replaced the wooden balconies and not the wood on the roof terrace. He said the block would look mismatched and unsightly. In the stage 2 response, the landlord said it would only carry out necessary works to ensure value for money. It explained the primary concern was fire safety, so it would not carry out additional works for other reasons.
  5. This was again reasonable, as the landlord made its decision based on risk, rather than aesthetics. This was particularly important as there were leaseholders in the block that would be charged for the works. Therefore, the landlord needed to ensure it was only carrying out necessary works in order to be mindful of the financial implications to leaseholders.
  6. When the resident asked the landlord to widen the scope of the works to include the roof terrace, it explained why it could not do so. It said this would be major works because the decking was part of the roof covering. It said this would need its own planning approval, different scaffolding and to go through the procurement process. While disappointing for the resident, the landlord’s explanation was reasonable.
  7. Between May and September 2022 the resident made a number of enquiries about this issue. The landlord’s responses were detailed and clearly explained its position. While this was not the outcome the resident was seeking, it was appropriate that the landlord was honest with him. From the evidence we have seen, the landlord has generally been consistent in its response to the resident’s enquiries about this issue. 
  8. However, as part of the complaint escalation request, the resident said a contractor operative had agreed the roof terrace should be included as part of the works. When he told the landlord this, it said contractors could make suggestions but this did not mean they needed to be or would be carried out. This was disappointing for the resident and meant his expectations had been raised, only to be let down. While disappointing for him, this did not affect the overall outcome.
  9. In identifying whether there has been maladministration we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  10. As part of its response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged service failure in its communication, apologised, offered £30 compensation and identified learning. This was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. Considering the full circumstances of the case, and in consultation with the landlord’s compensation policy at the time; the redress offered was reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of his enquiries about fire safety works completed in 2022.
  11. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to pay the resident the £30 compensation already offered, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. 

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in 16 working days and the stage 2 complaint in 45 working days. These were over the committed response times of 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and 20 working days for stage 2 complaints, set out in its complaints policy at the time.
  2. In total, the complaint journey took 61 days to complete. This was more than double the 30 working day committed timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy at the time. This delay equated to around 6 weeks and amounts to maladministration. This made the resident feel that the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously.
  3. During the period of delay for the stage 2 response in October and November 2022, the resident incurred time and trouble in chasing the landlord for the response on at least 3 occasions. This amounts to maladministration and was frustrating for him.
  4. At the end of October 2022, after the resident had asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2, the landlord told him escalating the complaint would not change its decision about the scope of the works. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said that, as part of the stage 2 investigation, an independent review of the complaint would be carried out. As this had not yet taken place, it is unclear how the landlord could determine what the outcome would be.
  5. This response suggests the landlord had already made up its mind about the final outcome and was not committed to doing an independent review of the complaint, as per its complaints policy. This amounts to maladministration and was disappointing for the resident.
  6. In the stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged failure in its complaint handling. It apologised and offered £30 compensation, which its compensation policy said was an amount for a ‘minor failure’. It is positive that the landlord independently identified failure in its handling of this issue and offered redress to the resident. This shows it was prepared to take accountability for its actions and wanted to put things right.
  7. However, considering the number of failures identified and in consultation with the landlord’s compensation policy, the redress offered is insufficient. Therefore a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £175 compensation (inclusive of the £30 already offered), which was in line with its compensation policy at the time for ‘moderate failure’.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s enquiries about fire safety works completed in 2022.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has paid the resident £175 compensation for its complaint handling (inclusive of the £30 already offered, if not done so already).

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £30 compensation already offered for its handling of his enquiries about fire safety works completed in 2022, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.