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

Peabody Trust (202220922)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220922

Peabody Trust

5 June 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

1.             The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the:

  1. Resident’s reports that her neighbour fraudulently used her address to receive their post.
  2. Resident’s reports about racial discrimination.

2.             The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3.             The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord and the property is described as a 3-bedroom flat. The entrance to the property has a shared door.

4.             The allegations made by the resident relate to her neighbour who will be referred to as “Tenant A” within the report. The tenancy agreement for Tenant A has not been provided for this investigation. However, it has been assumed that the tenancy terms will be the same as the resident’s.

5.             The resident complained to the landlord on 24 January 2022 that she suspected Tenant A of committing identity theft. The resident stated that she had received parcels, council tax, utility bills and housing benefit in Tenant A’s name. The resident supplied as an example a letter from the National Health Service addressed to Tenant A.

6.             On 26 January 2022, the landlord’s notes show that it spoke to the resident regarding a proposal it had made. The resident expressed that she had contacted action fraud who had advised that they could not assist as the resident had not experienced a financial loss. Action fraud had therefore signposted her to the landlord to obtain a resolution.

7.             There is a gap in communication between the landlord and the resident until the Member of Parliament (MP) contacted the landlord on 4 October 2022. The MP advised that the resident was concerned that Tenant A (and/or persons she had sublet the property to) were using her address to receive parcels she had not ordered. Also, the resident had experienced difficulty with her utility bills, housing benefit and council tax accounts.

8.             This Service contacted the landlord on 7 December 2022 to request that it respond to the resident’s complaint.

9.             The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 December 2022. It advised that it had informed the resident that she needed to report her concerns about criminal activity to the police. If the police confirmed an offence had occurred, it could take tenancy action.

10.        The resident escalated her complaint the following day. She expressed that she had been complaining about this issue since January 2014 and that this was the first time that the landlord had responded. The resident went on to say that she had experienced racial discrimination, anxiety and stress. Also, the landlord had recorded phone numbers on her tenancy account that were not related to her. Finally, the landlord’s complaint response did not reflect all the housing officers she had spoken to.

11.        The landlord contacted the resident on 9 January 2023 to advise that it was aware that the resident remained dissatisfied with its complaint response. It stated that it was of the view that it did not believe that her reports amounted to fraud as the property had a single door. It had also considered that the resident’s address had a prefix while Tenant A’s address consisted of a single number. It proposed that it:

  1. Speak to Tenant A regarding the mail being registered at the incorrect address.
  2. Install external post boxes clearly labelled with each residents’ surname.
  3. Provide additional signage.
  4. Ask the local authority to rename the properties.

12.        The landlord provided its final complaint response on 29 March 2023. It stated that it had offered an action plan to address the resident’s concern at its previous complaint stage which had not been accepted by the resident or Tenant A. It advised the resident that its offer remained open and that allegations of fraud were a matter for the police to investigate. With regard to the resident’s report of racial discrimination, it stated that it had not received any evidence from the resident or details of a perpetrator. Therefore, it advised the resident to provide the information for it to investigate her concerns.

13.        The landlord went on to acknowledge that her initial request for her complaint to be escalated had not been forwarded to the correct team. Therefore, the resident had experienced a delay between 21 December 2022 and her contact with this Service on 9 January 2023. It had fed back to its services about this error and it made a compensation award of £150 for the delay she experienced. Furthermore, it was restructuring its customer resolution team to provide expert complaint handlers, administration support and team leaders, which should conclude by the end of March 2023.

14.        The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service. The resident expressed that she has been complaining to the landlord since 2014 and her concerns remained unaddressed. Also, the landlord had not demonstrated fairness as the only time it contacted her was when false accusations were made about her by Tenant A.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

15.        The resident has said that her concerns about Tenant A using her address to receive her mail have been ongoing for many years and she has raised this with the landlord since 2014. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events occur because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.

16.        Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focused on the period from January 2022 until the landlord issued its final complaint response in March 2023. This is based on the provisions outlined in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Resident’s reports that her neighbour fraudulently used her address to receive their post

17.        It is appreciated that the resident has been frustrated by the landlord’s handling of her reports of Tenant A’s use of her address to receive mail. The resident’s feelings are understood and acknowledged. The resident and Tenant A have a responsibility to behave in accordance with their respective tenancy agreements. The landlord has a responsibility to its residents to enable them to maintain and sustain their tenancies as well as taking appropriate action in response to complaints it receives.

18.        The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy states that minor disagreements between residents will not be treated as anti-social behaviour. It was reasonable for the landlord to decide that the resident’s reports regarding post did not meet the threshold to be considered as anti-social behaviour. The landlord determined that this was likely to be a genuine mistake as the property had a single door which provides access for the 2 properties. The numbering of the resident’s property contained an alpha prefix and Tenant A’s does not. Further, the resident confirmed to the police that fraud had not taken place.

19.        The landlord determined in January 2022 that it could not take tenancy action unless the police concluded that an offence had been committed. It is accepted that the police are the lead authority to assess whether criminal activity has taken place. However, the landlord’s approach was not in accordance with its anti-social behaviour policy which states that it can offer mediation to help resolve disagreements between residents. This was a shortcoming as it missed an opportunity to resolve the concerns that the resident had bought to its attention.

20.        Despite contact from the MP in October 2022 about the same issues, it took until January 2023 for the landlord to present to the resident a list of possible solutions to resolve her concerns. Had the landlord acted more promptly on receipt of the enquiry from the MP, this may have helped to reassure the resident that her concerns had not been ignored. This delay was unreasonable.

21.        Good tenancy management involves building relationships and resolving concerns between residents. The landlord’s proposals to the resident included the installation of external post boxes, improved signage and speaking to the local authority about renumbering the properties. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s proposed measures showed its commitment to address the resident’s concerns. The resident did not consent to the landlord’s proposals and apparently wanted stronger action taken by the landlord. However, to do so, the landlord in the first instance would have to progress informal measures to evidence that it had taken reasonable and proportionate steps to resolve the resident’s concerns prior to moving to any enforcement action.

22.        The landlord’s records show that it also discussed with Tenant A the suggestions it had made to resolve the resident’s concerns. In response, Tenant A advised that she had taken her own action by arranging for the redirection of her mail. It is noted that the landlord’s submission to this Service does not include records of its contact with Tenant A regarding this. However, there is no reason to dispute this information given the types of mail that the resident reported receiving were official documents which contained private and confidential information that Tenant A would likely not want shared with a third party.

23.        The resident expressed that the situation had been ongoing for a significant period of time and had remained unresolved by the landlord. The landlord in its final complaint response outlined how it would resolve the resident’s concerns, advising that the suggestions it had made remained available to the resident to accept. This was a reasonable approach.

Resident’s reports about racial discrimination

24.        The resident has complained that the landlord has not treated her fairly and she feels that she has been discriminated against. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place as this is a legal term which is better suited to the courts to decide. Therefore, this report has considered whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns. The resident may wish to seek independent advice with regard to any legal recourse she may have with regards to these matters.

25.        The Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard requires registered providers to “treat all tenants with fairness and respect” and “demonstrate that they understand the different needs of tenants’ including in relation to the equality strands.”

26.        During its complaint investigation, the landlord reviewed its contact with the resident over the previous 6 months and concluded that it had not received a report from her that she had not been treated fairly. The records show that the resident was disappointed with the landlord’s response to her concerns about the use of the shared garden. However, this was raised and resolved in 2014 and, based on the available information, there is no evidence that the resident had raised recent concerns with the landlord about not being treated fairly.

27.        The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident had made reports to the landlord that would amount to discrimination from March 2022 to when the landlord issued its final complaint response. It was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord in its final complaint response to inform the resident that she could provide more information about her concerns for its investigation.

Complaint handling

28.        The landlord’s complaint procedure states that at the first stage of the complaint procedure, it will respond within 10 working days and that at its final stage, it will respond within 20 working days.

29.        This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (March 2022) encourages the early and local resolution of concerns that residents have. According to the landlord’s submission to this Service, the resident complained to the landlord on 24 January 2022 about Tenant A having her mail addressed to her property. By 26 January 2022, the landlord had provided its complaint response. The landlord has not provided this Service with the response it sent to the resident. However, from what can be seen, it was of the opinion that it could not act as the police had not done so. There is no evidence that the resident escalated her complaint to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure or escalated her complaint to this Service.

30.        The MP then contacted the landlord about the same issues on 4 October 2022. The landlord acknowledged the enquiry the following day, advising that it would respond by 19 October 2022. The landlord’s submission to this Service does not evidence that the landlord responded to the MP.

31.        There was a gap in communication until this Service contacted the landlord on 7 December 2022, requesting that it respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord responded to the complaint on 20 December 2022 which was within its complaint handling timescale of 10 working days.

32.        The resident escalated the complaint the following day. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on 9 January 2023 and provided its final complaint response on 29 March 2023. This represents an unreasonable delay as the resident waited 67 working days to receive the landlord’s complaint response.

33.        The landlord considered this through the complaints process and concluded that there was a delay in the resident’s escalation request reaching the correct team. This was appropriate as it recognised that its complaint handling processes did not achieve its published aims of responding to the resident within 20 working days.

34.        In assessing the redress offered by the landlord for its complaint handling service failures, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors such as the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s actions. In this case, the landlord’s apology and compensation award of £150 was proportionate and within a range that the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance would recommend where there was a minor failure by the landlord in its service delivery.

35.        In addition, the landlord has outlined how it had learned from the complaint and the organisational changes it was making to restructure the team to include expert complaint handlers. This was to reassure the resident that it had taken her concerns seriously and taken steps to improve the complaint handling experiences of its residents. Overall, the landlord’s apology and compensation award is considered reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

36.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that her neighbour fraudulently used her address to receive their post.

37.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about racial discrimination.

38.        In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to our investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint handling failings satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

39.        Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is to:

  1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failure identified in this report.
  2. Pay the resident compensation of £150 for the impact of its failings in its handling of her reports regarding Tenant A’s use of her address to receive her post.
  3. Write to the resident to re–offer the proposals it outlined in its final complaint response in March 2023, giving the resident time to advise which proposal she agrees to.

40.        The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the time frame outlined above.

Recommendations

41.        If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £150 compensation it awarded for its complaint handling failures in its stage 2 complaint response.

42.        The landlord is to contact the resident:

  1. To review the accuracy of the contact details it has recorded for her.
  2. Regarding her concerns about Housing Benefit and to signpost her to the correct department to resolve them.