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

Peabody Trust (202217658)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217658

Peabody Trust

22 December 2023


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 resident’s dissatisfaction with the length of time it took for the landlord to install Wi-Fi in the communal areas, and the amount of compensation it offered.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. He resides in an apartment block with communal facilities, including communal working spaces and a cinema room.
  2. Upon purchasing the property in 2021, the resident became aware that the communal areas lacked Wi-Fi, therefore could not be used for the intended purpose. The landlord acknowledged that Wi-Fi should have been in place before the development was handed over and said that it was the responsibility of the original developer to install. The developer did not put in sufficient fibre to be able to provide an installation of Wi-Fi in the communal workspace area. The landlord assured the resident that it was working on a solution, therefore he allowed them the time to do so. No evidence has been provided to this service to demonstrate what steps the landlord took to resolve the issue prior to June 2022.
  3. In June 2022 the issue was still outstanding therefore the resident began to chase the landlord. From the evidence provided to this Service the landlord was in regular contact with the network provider at this point and an installation date of 8 June 2022 was agreed. During this appointment the provider was unable to fully complete the installation and the target date was moved to 30 June 2022 despite the landlord’s efforts to expedite.
  4. On 30 June 2022, the network provider attended but was unable to access the cable room. They asked the landlord to ensure that access was readily available for the next appointment on 20 July 2022. During this visit the fibre cabling was incorrectly installed in the wrong location.
  5. The resident raised a complaint on 27 July 2022 as he was dissatisfied with how the installation of the Wi-Fi had been handled by the landlord. He said that it should have been in place before residents moved in and that the basic Wi-Fi installed as a temporary measure was not fit for purpose.
  6. The landlord’s stage one response on 29 July 2022 acknowledged that there had been significant delays, much of which it attributed to the network provider and a delay in them handing over the server. The landlord said that it’s IT department had been working to try and find a suitable solution. In recognition, they offered compensation of a 10% reduction in the annual management fee for 2021/22, this offer would be extended to all affected residents.
  7. Following an escalation request from the resident, the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 17 October 2022, within this response they upheld the compensation amount. The resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome and brought the complaint to the Ombudsman. The final installation did not take place until 14 December 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that he feels the property was mis represented and that the provision of communal facilities was a contributing factor in his decision to purchase. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to make a determination on this, matters such as this are better suited to a court to decide as the courts have different jurisdiction and powers to the Ombudsman.

The length of time it took for the landlord to install wi-fi in the communal areas, and the amount of compensation it offered.

  1. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  2. The lease agreement between the resident and landlord is silent in relation to the provision and maintenance of Wi-Fi within the communal areas. However, it is not disputed that the marketing material specifically stated that Wi-Fi would be provided, therefore, it is reasonable to assume that this would fall under the landlord’s obligations within the sixth schedule of the lease.
  3. Prior to the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord in July 2022, there is evidence that the landlord was in regular communication with the network provider and actively tried to come to a resolution. It is evident that errors were made by the provider which considerably contributed to the overall delay, however, it is reasonable to conclude that these were somewhat out of the landlord’s direct control. When the errors were identified the landlord took reasonable steps and tried to resolve them by escalating to senior management.

 

  1. The landlord did attempt to put things right by installing a temporary Wi-Fi supply to the communal areas, however, it has since acknowledged that this was not fit for purpose. It is unclear if additional measures could have been taken as an interim measure.
  2. It is understandable that the resident felt frustrated at the continued delays, various deadlines and timescales which were communicated to the resident did not materialise, however, it would be unfair to deem this entirely a failure of the landlord. The evidence shows that the landlord did chase on a regular basis and escalated the issue with the provider, who admitted failings.
  3. In correspondence to both the landlord and this Service, the resident has advised that he believes there was a lack of communication from the landlord regarding the issue. Although the landlord did carry out two resident meetings during this period, there is evidence to suggest that communication could have been better. Within its stage 1 response the landlord assured the resident that it would continue to monitor progress and that he would be updated on 17 August 2022, but this did not happen. In addition, the resident expended further time and trouble by having to chase the landlord on several occasions for updates.
  4. Overall, despite the landlord taking proactive steps to resolve the issue there was a considerable delay in the installation of the Wi-Fi. This caused detriment and inconvenience to the resident as he was unable to fully use the communal facilities for 18 months. The landlord has acknowledged the delay and agreed that in hindsight it could have done things differently at the development stage which indicates positive learning.
  5. When offering compensation, the landlord said that it had to take into consideration that the issue had a bearing on all residents. It acknowledged that the impact would not be the same for all, therefore, it felt that a reduction in the management fee was appropriate redress. Although this approach is understandable, the resident has informed this Service that a 10% reduction equates to approximately £27 for 2021/22. This level of compensation is not proportionate to the inconvenience caused to the resident nor does it appropriately reflect the fact that the issue wasn’t resolved until December 2022.
  6.  In addition, there is evidence of failures within the landlord’s communication, the resident requested regular updates which did not happen, the lack of clarity resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord for updates and its offer of compensation did not account for this. Therefore, compensation of £270 has been ordered below, this equates to £15 per month for the 18 month period that the resident was inconvenienced.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the length of time it took to install Wi-Fi in the communal areas, and the amount of compensation it offered.

 

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £270 compensation in recognition of the detriment caused to him by the delays in the provision of the communal Wi-Fi and the time and trouble he expended making contact.