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

Peabody Trust (202300324)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300324

Peabody Trust

18 February 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:
    1. Offer of compensation to the resident.
    2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord which is a housing association. The lease commenced on 28 May 2012. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. The landlord has not confirmed if it has any vulnerabilities for the resident on record.
  2. Following a leak through the roof into the resident’s property the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 9 January 2023. It upheld the complaint and offered £300 compensation comprised of £200 for inconvenience, time and trouble chasing the repair and £100 for complaint handling failures. It advised the resident that if he wished to escalate his complaint he should do so within 10 working days.
  3. On 20 June 2023 the resident completed a webform to request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the process. He was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered. The landlord failed to respond and on 2 October the resident contacted this Service to request assistance. On 10 January 2024 we wrote to the landlord to request that it provide its complaint response.
  4. On 24 January 2024 the landlord spoke to the resident to clarify his stage 1 complaint. He was dissatisfied because it had failed to respond to his requests to escalate his complaint. He confirmed that the leak had been repaired however, he had paid for an electrician to replace light fittings and had repaired the ceiling. He needed to replace the carpets however, they would cost £1500 and he could not pay any more because he had already spent £3000 on remedial repairs.
  5. On 24 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, the main points being:
    1. It had provided a stage 1 complaint response on 8 January 2023. In line with its complaints procedure it would not investigate matters which had already been determined under the complaints policy. Therefore it would not investigate the roof leak repairs but would look at matters which were outstanding.
    2. The member of staff who issued the complaint response no longer worked for the organisation. It was not aware of when he left and if it was shortly after the stage 1 complaint was closed. This may or may not be the reason why the resident did not receive a response.
    3. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and said that since its merger changes had been made so should he ever need to make a complaint in the future he would experience a “significantly improved” customer journey and experience. It advised that its customer contact centre could help in the event of a query and provided their contact details.
    4. The resident was responsible for internal remedial repairs as per the terms of his lease. However, for damages caused by a building fault he could claim on his home contents or building insurance.
    5. During their call the resident advised he had not made an insurance claim and was following the complaints process for damages to be considered.
    6. Insurance related matters were dealt with by its insurance team and could not be addressed by the complaints procedure as set out in its complaints procedure and compensation and remedies policy.
    7. It had considered the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident.  Due to its lack of response to the resident’s first request to escalate his complaint and its failure to award compensation for use of dehumidifiers and a missed appointment, it increased the compensation to £500. This was comprised of £300 for time, trouble and inconvenience and £200 for complaint handling.
    8. The resident had confirmed that he used 2 dehumidifiers for 2 weeks and experienced 1 missed appointment. In line with its compensation and remedies policy it also offered:
      1. £56.00 for the running costs of the dehumidifier at a rate of £2.00 per day.
      2. £10.00 for the missed appointment.
    9. It provided details of how to make a claim on home contents or buildings insurance. As a gesture of goodwill, it offered a contribution of £350 towards the buildings insurance excess, to help lessen any further out of pocket expenses.
    10. The total amount of compensation offered was £916.
  6. On 4 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that the compensation did not cover his expenses and asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 29 July 2024, as follows:
    1. It apologised for the delays and “frustrations” caused.
    2. It was “clear that there was a breakdown in the communications with the resident however, the person who issued the original stage 1 had left the organisation. The new policies it had put in place would prevent a repeat.
    3. The length of time taken to resolve the matter was “unacceptable and way beyond the timelines it would expect.
    4. It partially upheld complaint as the original complaint asked it to compensate for items that it would expect to be covered by a contents insurance policy.
    5. It would review the handling of the case to ensure similar delays were not caused in the future.
    6. Once its monitoring team had confirmed that the required actions had been completed, it would revisit its compensation offer to see if any further remediation was due.
    7. It offered an additional £1000 compensation.
  8. On 18 August 2024 the resident contacted this Service to ask for a “more satisfactory resolution” in which the compensation was proportionate to the impact the situation had on him.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s responsibilities, policies and procedures.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says its complaints procedure will not deal with insurance claims and appeals including damage to personal belongings and property. It also says that:
    1. It will log new complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days.
    2. All requests for escalation must be received within 10 working days of receiving the stage 1 response. The stage 2 response will be provided within 20 working days of the request being received.
    3. If it needs more time to provide a response, it will provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received.
  2. Its compensation policy says:
    1. It expects residents to have contents insurance for situations including accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage. Its compensation policy is not intended to compensate for a resident’s lack of contents insurance.
    2. It will not consider offering a remedy or paying compensation where a claim can be made on the resident’s home contents or buildings insurance.
    3. It will consider paying compensation for inconvenience, time and trouble and poor complaint handling.
    4. It will pay £10 for each missed appointment where there has been a repair service failure.

The complaint is about the landlord’s offer of compensation to the resident.

  1. Following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response issued on 9 January 2023, the resident provided an invoice setting out the costs he had incurred in relation to inspecting and testing his light fittings.
  2. In his call to the landlord on 24 January 2024 the resident confirmed that in addition to the costs associated with the light fittings he had paid to replace his ceiling. He also needed to replace his carpet at a cost of £1500 but was unable to do so due to the money he had already spent. He advised the landlord that he wished to use the complaints process to recover these costs.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response of 24 January 2024 the landlord advised that where damage was caused by a building fault the resident could claim on his contents or buildings insurance. It advised that the complaints process could not consider insurance matters and provided the contact details for its insurance team. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints and compensation policies.
  4. It appropriately reviewed the amount of compensation originally awarded on 9 January 2023. Its award of £10 for a missed appointment was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy. While it was not obliged to do so, it appropriately used its discretion to assist the resident with the cost of the building insurance excess.
  5. In his email to the landlord of 4 February 2024 the resident said the compensation offered did not cover the costs he had incurred. He confirmed he did not have contents insurance. The landlord replied on 13 February to reiterate that insurance matters could not be considered as part of the complaints process. It referred the resident to its earlier response which set out how he could make a claim on its building insurance. The landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. On 14 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and its insurance company to ask that they liaise with one another to progress a claim on his behalf. The landlord replied on 20 February to advise that the resident would need to make a claim in his own right and gave appropriate reasons as to why.
  7. On 18 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say he had emailed the insurance team and they had sent a file for him to send to another insurance provider. This investigation has been unable to establish if the resident pursued the insurance claim.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 29 July 2024 said that it partially upheld the resident’s complaint because the original complaint asked it to compensate for items it would expect to be covered by contents insurance. Given that the matter of insurance was addressed in its stage 1 complaint response dated 24 January the relevance of this statement is unclear.
  9. The landlord’s response was appropriate and in line with its policies. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response issued on 9 January 2023 advised that if the resident wished to escalate his complaint he should do so by 23 January.
  2. In his telephone call to the landlord on 24 January 2024 the resident asserted that he had responded to the stage 1 “at the time” but his phone calls and emails were ignored. This Service does not doubt the resident’s account. However, there is no independent evidence to corroborate events. Therefore, it is not possible for this investigation to make a determination on this point.
  3. However, on 20 June 2023 the resident submitted a web enquiry to request to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord failed to provide a response which was inappropriate. If it considered the request to have been made out of time it would have been appropriate to advise the resident accordingly and set out next steps.
  4. Its inaction caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when he contacted this Service for assistance in resolving his complaint on 2 October 2023. We wrote to the landlord on 10 January 2024 requesting that it issue its response by 31 January.
  5. On 12 January 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to say it would provide a response within 10 working days. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 24 January which was within its timescales. Given the passing of time it was appropriate that the landlord should raise a fresh stage 1 complaint.
  6. The landlord advised that the officer the resident tried to contact to raise his complaint had since left. It said it was not aware of when this happened or whether this was shortly after the stage 1 response was issued.
  7. The landlord’s response was inappropriate because it should have gathered this information as part of its investigation into the complaint to give a comprehensive response. Furthermore, it also failed to identify that the resident had submitted a webform in June 2023. This demonstrated that it did not carry out a thorough investigation into the issue which was inappropriate.
  8. It appropriately apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident and identified changes made which should prevent a recurrence. It also appropriately signposted the resident to its contact centre in the event of a further query.
  9. On 4 February and 18 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say he had tried to call the number on the signature of the complaint responder but there was no answer. The landlord’s responses of 13 February and 3 April failed to comment on this point which was inappropriate. This was because it failed to identify what had gone wrong and what it needed to do differently.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 February 2024 to request to escalate his complaint to stage 2. On 3 April the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for the delay in its complaint response. It said that due to a high volume of stage 2 complaints it had experienced a delay in assigning complaints to senior reviewers. It said it would provide a further update once the complaint had been assigned.
  11. While it was positive that the landlord provided an update to the resident this was 42 working days after the complaint was made and 22 working days after the response was due. Therefore, it was an apology for not having done something rather than proactively managing the resident’s expectations. Furthermore, it did not comply with its complaints policy to agree a clear timeframe in the event of a delay.
  12. The landlord provided a further update on 7 May 2024 when it emailed the resident to advise that its team was undergoing both structural changes and additional staffing recruitment in order to deal with the increased amount of complaints that had caused a backlog of cases.  It said it would respond within 20 working days. It was appropriate that the landlord provided an update but that it came a month after the last update was not. 
  13. On 30 May 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that the complaint had been due on 5 June but that it needed to extend the deadline by 10 working days.
  14. It said this was in line with the policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code). While both say the deadline can be extended for up to 10 days with good reason, this applies to the original response date not to a target that is set well outside the original time the response is due.
  15. It said it would respond by 19 June however, it emailed the resident on the day the response was due to say it needed to extend again to 3 July. Again, this was an apology for not having done something rather than proactively managing the resident’s expectations.
  16. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 29 July 2024 which was almost 6 months after the resident requested to escalate his complaint. There were no good reasons for the delay and it was therefore unreasonable.
  17. The Code requires landlords to set out in clear, plain language the details of any remedy offered to put things right. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 24 January 2024 clearly set out how it apportioned its offer of compensation including £200 for complaint handling failures.
  18. However, its handling of compensation at stage 2 is confusing. The stage 2 complaint response dated 29 July 2024 offered £600 which included elements referred to at stage 1 for example, the missed appointment and insurance excess. It also offered £400 for complaint handling failures and poor internal communications which impacted on its complaint handling.
  19. However, in an email to this Service dated 11 February 2025 the landlord advised that the resident accepted its offer of £916 compensation but rejected its offer of £1000 at stage 2 which it said was made in addition to the compensation offered at stage 1. The lack of clarity makes it difficult to assess the landlord’s final offer of compensation which is inappropriate.
  20. The stage 2 response also said it would revisit compensation once its monitoring team had advised that the required actions were completed. It is unclear what actions remained outstanding for it to monitor. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it carried out a further review of compensation.
  21. The landlord’s failures amount to service failure because they may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident. Furthermore, there is a requirement for the landlord to put right its failure regarding its offer of compensation. Based on the landlord’s evidence it offered £200 at stage 1 and a further £400 at stage 2 for its complaint handling failures. This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s offer of compensation to the resident.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should write to the resident to:
    1. Apologise for the failures identified in the report.
    2. Clarify the compensation it has previously offered and re offer any compensation which has not already been paid.
  2. Evidence of compliance with the above orders should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.