Peabody Trust (202233123)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233123

Peabody Trust

13 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for information about her tenancy.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord under a tenancy commencing 2 August 1993. The landlord has advised this Service that it has not been able to locate the tenancy agreement.
The resident’s original landlord has since merged with her present landlord. For convenience, this report will refer to both former and present landlords as ‘the landlord’.
It is understood that the resident initially lived with her husband in the property. The resident has stated that she left the property due to abuse from her husband and moved into private rented accommodation. It is not clear exactly when this occurred, save that it was some time ago and prior to the Covid pandemic of 2020.
It has not been suggested by the resident that she sought advice from the landlord regarding her housing situation prior to leaving the property. The resident has explained to this Service that at the time when she left the property, she had assumed that the tenancy was a joint tenancy and she was willing to assign it to her husband for a quiet life.
According to the resident, she was subsequently advised by the landlord that in fact the tenancy was in her sole name and could not be transferred. It is not clear when this advice was given. However, in light of it, the resident sought information and advice from the landlord regarding her housing situation. The point of the resident’s complaint is that the landlord failed properly to respond to her enquiries. Accordingly, that has been the focus of this investigation.
The landlord has not produced its records to this Service to show its contemporaneous communications with, and advice to, the resident in respect of her queries about her tenancy. However, the resident has produced her communications with the landlord from 29 December 2022 as follows:
1. On 29 December 2022, the resident sent an email to the landlord. This stated that:
  1. she had been trying to deal with her housing matter for a long time;
  2. she had left her coercive, controlling, bullying husband who was now in her house;
  3. she had previously supplied medical evidence to the landlord concerning her mental health which supported her need for her own private garden to help with this;
  4. her case had been passed to the landlord’s housing management team;
  5. she would rather live where her husband did not know where she was; and
  6. she was now divorced.
2. There was no response to this email from the landlord.
3. On 12 January 2023, the resident sent a chaser to the landlord stating that she had sent numerous emails but had not got a response. She asked the landlord to check its emails. The resident received an email on the same date to say that the landlord’s area manager would be contacting her but she did not hear anything further.
4. On 27 January 2023, the landlord called the resident and left a voicemail. The resident attempted to call back without success. She emailed the landlord on 6 February 2023 stating this and asking for it to call her but she did not receive a call back.
5. On 24 February 2023, the resident sent an email to the landlord summarising the above attempts to discuss her housing situation with it. She stated that she needed to discuss this and explained it had caused her great stress for a long time. She felt she had been treated very unfairly by the landlord. She asked for something to be done by the landlord and for someone to contact her. There was no response to this email.
The resident apparently made 2 complaints to the landlord around this time. Copies of the complaints have not been provided to this Service but the resident has provided copies of the landlord’s acknowledgements dated 3 and 19 April 2023. According to the resident, she received no response to these complaints and none has been produced to this Service by the landlord.
On 14 May 2023, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord. She complained that she had been trying to speak to someone since December 2022, by email and by phone and was still awaiting a response. The resident asked for an appointment with a housing manager to discuss her housing matter. She also asked for an explanation for why her phone calls and emails were not responded to.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 May 2023. For reasons which are not clear, there was a delay in the landlord providing a Stage 1 response. The landlord advised the resident on 25 July 2023 that it would provide an update when it had more information. The resident chased the landlord on 8 August 2023.
This Service intervened on 11 August 2023, directing the landlord to provide a response by 21 August 2023. The landlord was informed in this letter that, by way of resolution of her complaint, the resident was looking for the landlord to provide accurate information in response to her information requests; for the landlord to support a management transfer; and for it to communicate with the resident and provide a complaint response.
The landlord provided its Stage 1 response on 15 August 2023:
1. The landlord summarised that the resident’s complaint was that she had been trying to contact it to discuss her housing situation and that to resolve the complaint she was seeking contact to progress this.
2. It referred to recent discussions it had had with the resident regarding her complaint in which she had indicated that she was urgently seeking to move back into her home which her ex-partner was occupying.
3. It had reviewed her complaint with its Head of Neighbourhood Services who had agreed to lead on her case and become the main point of contact. This point of contact had left a voice message with the resident that day with her contact details.
4. It apologised for the delay in allocating the resident a main point of contact. It explained that it was experiencing staffing issues.
5. It recognised that the resident had experienced poor complaints handling in that it had responded to the complaint outside its published timescale of 10 working days and her case was not originally assigned to a case manager which had delayed investigations.
6. The landlord offered an apology and £250 compensation, being £100 for its poor complaints handling and £150 for the time, trouble and inconvenience the resident had experienced while trying to contact it.
On 2 September 2023, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint to Stage 2. The resident noted that her allocated point of contact had tried to call her but she complained that she had been trying to speak to someone for nearly a year which was not acceptable. She stated she was willing to attend a meeting to discuss the matter.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 11 September 2023. It notified the resident on 3 subsequent occasions that it needed extensions of time to provide a Stage 2 response which was ultimately issued on 20 October 2023.
In the Stage 2 response:
1. The landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in responding to the resident’s request to speak to it although it did not accept that this had been as long as a year.
2. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s home had never been a joint tenancy.
3. The landlord indicated that it had not previously been aware that the resident had left her home due to domestic violence. It referred to its understanding from the resident that she could no longer afford to reside within her home and for this reason she had requested assistance to source alternative accommodation.
4. The landlord outlined the steps it would have taken if it had been made aware of the domestic violence, namely, to direct the resident to the local authority, since it was best placed to deal with those fleeing domestic violence as well as facilitating accommodation. It stated that once the local authority had accepted liability to rehouse her, the landlord would have advised the resident to terminate the tenancy.
5. The landlord would have considered all options available regarding her ex-partner at that stage but would not transfer the tenancy to someone responsible for domestic violence.
6. The landlord recognised that the resident had previously reported domestic violence to the police approximately 20 years ago. It stated that a management transfer could not be considered at this stage since there was no evidence which confirmed that she had left the property due to domestic violence.
7. The landlord suggested that the resident contact the police if she felt in danger. It would work alongside the police where required.
8. The resident was advised to seek independent legal advice since the landlord was unable to remove her ex-partner from the property directly.
9. It accepted that there had been delays in responding to the resident’s request to speak with it and delays in responding to the complaint at both stages. It outlined improvements which were in progress in this regard. It apologised for the service issues and increased the compensation offered to £400.
The resident responded to the landlord on 21 October 2023, suggesting that she had communicated with it regarding the domestic violence but this was to the merged partner of the landlord who had been her landlord at the time. The resident complained that none of what the landlord had said helped her with her housing issues. She wanted to know what her options were.
In response, the landlord confirmed that the records of her former landlord had been reviewed before the complaint response was issued but it offered to review any emails she wished to have considered. It would consider any record keeping service issues. It restated that she needed to seek independent legal advice regarding an injunction to remove her ex-partner as it was unable to assist her directly.
The resident accepted the compensation offered on 31 October 2023. She explained she could not afford to take her former husband to court to evict him. She was signposted by the landlord to Citizens Advice and other resources.
The resident confirmed to this Service on 5 November 2023 that she would like us to investigate. To resolve the complaint, the resident sought an increase in compensation awarded as she had had to move into private rented accommodation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for information about her tenancy

The background to this complaint, as set out above, is that the resident found herself in the difficult situation of living in private rented accommodation while her former husband occupied the property they once shared, of which she was the sole named tenant.
It is understandable that in these circumstances the resident would look to her landlord for assistance in understanding her housing options. The records available to this Service evidence the resident’s enquiries to this effect from 29 December 2022, although it is apparent from these that there had been communications between the landlord and the resident preceding this.
In her email to the landlord of 29 December 2022, the resident summarised the position she was in and expressed an interest in moving to a property with a garden to help her mental health and where her former husband would not know where she was. Given the personal circumstances of the resident, and the potential vulnerability concerning her mental health which she had highlighted in her email, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to respond to her email promptly. However, the landlord failed to respond at all.
The resident pursued her enquiries on a number of further occasions which the landlord again failed properly to respond to. In response to the resident’s chaser of 12 January 2023, the landlord informed the resident that its area manager would be contacting her but this did not occur; on 27 January 2023, the landlord left a message on the resident’s voicemail asking her to call back but was not available when she tried to do so and did not return her call as she requested; the resident’s email of 24 February 2023 was also not responded to.
The landlord’s failure to provide a substantive response to the resident over this period of time, which exceeded 2 months, was unreasonable.
The resident made 2 complaints in April 2023 which provided the landlord with further opportunities to address her enquiries. The landlord’s failure to respond to these complaints in line with its complaints procedure is dealt with further below. The landlord’s failure to provide a substantive response to the resident’s complaints meant that she continued to be in the dark as to where she stood with regard to her tenancy.
The resident submitted her complaint again on 14 May 2023. It is noted that at this time, the resident highlighted the pressing nature of the matter by informing the landlord that she was urgently seeking to move back into her home which her ex-partner was occupying.
There was nevertheless delay in the landlord providing its Stage 1 response, as dealt with further below, which was issued on 15 August 2023. In it, the landlord explained that its prior lack of contact was due to staffing issues and sought to resolve the matter by allocating the resident a main point of contact who would lead on her case. Appointing a specialist point of contact for the resident to speak to was a helpful first step for the landlord to take to try to put things right for the resident. Unfortunately, this did not resolve the matter as the resident’s attempts to speak to the appointed contact were not successful. This led to the resident’s decision to escalate the complaint on 2 September 2023.
According to the landlord, it did speak to the resident on 2 occasions around this time. However, as the landlord has not produced the relevant records, it is not possible for this Service to ascertain when the calls were made and what, if any, advice was given to the resident.
It was not until 20 October 2023 that the landlord provided a substantive response to the resident by way of its Stage 2 response. This was an excessive and unreasonable delay of 10 months by the landlord in responding to the resident’s enquiries.
It is clear from the landlord’s internal communications that when preparing its Stage 2 response, it gave consideration to the complexity of the legal situation with regard to the tenancy, including the effect of the resident vacating the property leaving her former husband in occupation. It also considered what actions were open to it to take as landlord. It concluded, and advised the resident in its Stage 2 response, that she should take independent legal advice. This was an appropriate response under the circumstances. It was also made clear to the resident at this point that a management transfer could not be considered by the landlord.
In her email of 21 October 2023, the resident suggested that she had communicated with the landlord regarding the domestic violence, contrary to what was stated in the Stage 2 response. The landlord confirmed that it had reviewed its records, including those of the landlord with whom it had merged, before issuing the complaint response but offered to review any emails the resident wished to have considered. This was a reasonable offer by the landlord to allay the resident’s concerns that there was factual material available of potential relevance to her request for a management transfer which it had not considered.
When the resident accepted the compensation offered on 31 October 2023, she explained she could not afford to take her husband to court to evict him. The landlord acted appropriately in signposting the resident to resources to assist her.
In summary, there was maladministration by the landlord in that it failed for an excessive and unreasonable length of time to provide a substantive response to the resident’s enquiries with regard to her tenancy. This caused detriment to the resident who was left in a state of uncertainty as to her tenancy which the resident informed the landlord was affecting her health.
It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise to the resident and offer redress for its failures in its complaint responses. However, the amount of compensation offered of £150 for this element of the complaint was not sufficient to take account of the length of time the resident had been seeking a response, the number of attempts she had made to obtain this or that her vulnerability was likely to have exacerbated the effect of the landlord’s failings. Under the circumstances, an award of £600 would be reasonable, including the £150 already offered and accepted by the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it operates a 2 stage complaints process. At Stage 1, complaints are logged within 5 working days and a response provided within 10 working days. At Stage 2, an independent review of the complaint is carried out by the landlord and a response provided within 20 working days of the request for escalation.
If at either stage the landlord requires more time to provide a response, the policy requires that it provide an explanation to the complainant containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required at Stage 1 or 20 working days at Stage 2, this should be agreed by both parties.
As detailed above, the resident made 2 complaints to the landlord in April 2023. Under its complaints policy, the landlord should have conducted an investigation and provided a response to the resident within 10 working days. While the landlord acknowledged each of the complaints, it did not provide a response to either. The reason for these failures by the landlord is not clear from the documents reviewed.
The resident brought the subject complaint on 14 May 2023 which the landlord acknowledged on 17 May 2023. Under its complaints policy, the landlord should have provided a Stage 1 response within 10 working days i.e. by 31 May 2023. It failed to do so or notify the resident that an extension was required. Intervention was required by this Service before the landlord issued its response on 15 August 2023, some 10 weeks outside policy timescales.
The landlord’s Stage 1 response appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the delay in providing the response and in engaging with the resident. It sought to resolve the problem by appointing a point of contact for the resident but, as noted above, this resolution failed due to lack of contact and caused the resident to escalate the complaint. This points to a failure of the landlord to monitor and follow through its proposed resolution and update the resident as is required under its complaints policy.
The resident requested an escalation of her complaint to Stage 2 on 2 September 2023. The Stage 2 response was required within 20 working days i.e. by 29 September 2023. The landlord notified the resident on 2 October 2023 (after the deadline for providing the response had passed) of the need for an extension to 5 October 2023; on 6 October 2023 (again after the deadline had passed), it notified the resident of an extension to 13 October 2023; on 13 October 2023, it notified the resident of an extension to 18 October 2023. The response was issued on 20 October 2023, being 20 days after the response was originally due.
The moving deadlines the landlord provided to the resident for a Stage 2 response demonstrate poor management of the complaint and the resident’s expectations. No reason for the delay was given, beyond that the landlord was seeking clarification regarding the resident’s case, notwithstanding that the landlord’s policy states that extensions should not exceed 10 days without good reason and that an explanation should be provided to the complainant.
In its Stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its complaint handling failure and increased its compensation offer in respect of this aspect to the sum of £250. This was fair and in line with the landlord’s compensation and remedies policy guidelines where there has been a severe failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure or to investigate a complaint correctly and which has caused significant impact on the complainant. It also aligns with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord’s offer is considered to provide reasonable redress for this part of the complaint. It is also noted from the Stage 2 response that the landlord has put measures in place to improve its complaint handling which demonstrates learning.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for information about her tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint handling failures.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay £600 compensation to the resident in respect of the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to her by its failures in responding to her requests for information about her tenancy (inclusive of the £150 awarded through its complaints process for this aspect of the complaint, if this has not already been paid).
The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to evidence its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendation

If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £250 offered to her in its Stage 2 response for its complaint handling failures.