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

Peabody Trust (202304938)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304938

Peabody Trust

12 March 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s request to downsize to a smaller property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident held an assured tenancy with the Crown Estate. The property was purchased by the landlord and appears to be subject to an intermediate market rent. The tenancy agreement remains unchanged from its commencement.
  2. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident’s children have left home, and the resident resides there alone. The resident has requested a smaller home, as she is no longer able to afford the larger property.
  3. The resident sent an email to the landlord on 26 May 2022. The email was about a number of issues with repairs, but the resident also requested that a mutual exchange be considered. Internal emails from 6 July 2022 state that the resident was unable to do a mutual exchange, as this was not permitted in her tenancy agreement.
  4. The resident continued to make requests for a mutual exchange, which the landlord declined. On 8 March 2023 the resident raised a complaint regarding the response to her request to downsize her property. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 20 April 2023. It advised that the resident would need to approach her local authority to get a social housing tenancy. The resident was advised that she could transfer properties by using the choice based letting systems or by looking at other intermediate market rent properties. The landlord also offered £25 compensation for complaint handling failures.
  5. The resident escalated the case to stage 2 on 20 April 2023. The landlord responded on 8 June 2023. It reiterated the transfer options to the resident and confirmed that a mutual exchange was not available to the resident. It increased the compensation for complaints handling to £250.
  6. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response. She has advised that her tenancy was previously a social tenancy and that there was a right to mutual exchange. She feels she has not been informed of the changes to her tenancy. She is concerned that she may end up homeless as she cannot afford to remain in the property, and she has been unsuccessful in finding a smaller property on the transfer options available. The resident has also raised concerns that she is in a large property of which there is often a shortage. She feels that a family who is living in an overcrowded home could benefit from her property. The resident would like support to mutually exchange her property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident would like the tenancy type changed, to allow her to move. The dispute regarding the type of tenancy the resident has, is not something the Ombudsman will consider. This is because this has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that when the properties were bought by the landlord from the Crown Estate that this may have been on an intermediate rent basis. The resident has also provided evidence from the Crown Estate’s legal team that shows that although the rent should be capped at intermediate rent, there was no lower limit set. There may be further considerations to be made, however the investigation will focus on the landlord’s response, in line with its current policies.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to downsize to a small property.

  1. The resident first requested to downsize the property on 26 May 2022. The landlord should have considered this request, and ensured the resident was contacted. The Ombudsman has seen internal emails from 6 July 2022. The emails state that the resident could not downsize as this was not permitted in the tenancy agreement. The landlord recognised that the cost of the property was having a negative impact on the resident. It requested the resident be contacted. The Ombudsman has not seen specific evidence of contact. However, later correspondence between the landlord and the resident indicates there may have been some communication with the resident. However, it is disappointing that no record has been maintained for contact. The landlord should reflect on this and ensure it appropriately records interactions with its residents so it can satisfy itself that appropriate information and guidance is provided.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 25 August 2022. She advised that she needed a more affordable home. She advised she had been looking online, but the only properties available to her were unsuitable. This was due to the resident needing somewhere she was able to commute from. She also stated that she had issues walking up stairs and therefore needed a ground floor property, or one with a lift. The resident also noted that she had applied to other local authorities but that the landlord had already advised her that it was unlikely she would get an outcome from this, as the resident was not homeless.
  3. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this conversation; however, it indicates that the landlord had discussed the case with the resident previously. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence of a response to the email on 25 August 2022, and as such cannot determine if there was a delay in the communication, or how long the delay was. However, internal landlord notes on 17 November 2022 confirm that the resident had been informed that she could only exchange with other ex-Crown Estate tenants.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 January 2023. She confirmed the local authority would not consider her for a tenancy as she was not homeless. She again requested support as she was living in a property that was too large for her and unaffordable to run. The landlord responded to say that the resident could not do a mutual exchange due to the type of property the resident had.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 February 2023 to advise that she was not getting responses to her emails and that she could not contact anyone on the phone. The landlord responded to this email on 20 February 2023, to advise it would investigate the query. While the Ombudsman recognises that landlords have a high volume of enquiries, it is noted that the response time from the landlord was slow, considering the resident may have previously had poor or delayed communication.
  6. The landlord sent an email on 23 February 2023, confirming that the resident was unable to mutually exchange. It advised that the resident could use the choice based letting site, or apply for other intermediate rent properties, via the website. It also advised that the resident could take in a lodger. The resident responded to advise she was already aware of these options. She also advised she would consider moving to other areas if necessary. She advised she had never been told she would not be able to exchange her property. The resident asked the landlord what would happen if she could no longer afford to run the house.
  7. The landlord responded to the resident on 24 February 2023. It suggested that the resident consider other social housing or private renting. The resident was unhappy with this as she stated that private renting did not have any security. The landlord advised that if the resident could not afford her home, then the collections department would need to be contacted. Although the collections department may have been the correct department to contact, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain what support the team could provide her. In not doing this, the comment could appear to be unsympathetic to the resident’s concern about being unable to afford her home.
  8. Throughout the complaint the landlord has maintained its position that the resident is not eligible for a mutual exchange. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy and the rehousing policy both state that any property on the Regency portfolio cannot mutually exchange with non-Regency properties. The landlord’s website also states that former Crown estates homes cannot mutually exchange with non-Regency properties. The resident’s tenancy has a clause which indicates that mutual exchange is not available. As such the landlord has acted within its policies to refuse the mutual exchange. The resident asserts that this tenancy condition has changed, however, the Ombudsman has seen no such evidence. Although the landlord has acted within the policies, the Ombudsman would encourage it to revisit its policy and potentially seek legal advice to see if any changes can be made that would allow the resident to mutually exchange her home.
  9. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident is in a difficult position. She has been clear that she is finding it increasingly difficult to afford to run the home, and despite looking at the transfer methods suggested by the landlord, the resident has been unable to find a suitable alternative. The resident is also occupying a 3-bedroom property which could be better used by a larger family, rather than a single occupant. The landlord has provided some advice and support; however, it is the opinion of the Ombudsman, that the landlord should continue to proactively assist the resident in finding a solution. This would be beneficial for both the resident and the landlord.
  10. The resident had raised concerns that she did not get responses to her emails. The Ombudsman has not been provided evidence of the landlord’s responses to the resident, although notes and internal communication suggest that the landlord did make contact with the resident. The landlord’s stance remained the same throughout the complaint. Although the delays in communication caused frustration to the resident, they did not impact on the overall outcome of the case. As such there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to downsize to a smaller property.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord should have responded to the stage 1 complaint within 20 working days as per its complaints policy. The landlord took 30 working days. Within this time, the resident advised she received 2 stage 1 responses, although the Ombudsman has only been provided with 1. Internal emails from the landlord show there was confusion on who was dealing with the complaint. The stage 1 was also initially passed to a member of staff who the resident had made a complaint about. This understandably frustrated the resident.
  2. There was confusion around when the resident escalated the case to stage 2. This was due to the case being reassigned, and the landlord issuing 2 stage 1 responses. However, following the stage 1 that the Ombudsman has seen, the next escalation request was made on 27 April 2023. The landlord should have responded within 10 working days as per its complaints policy. It responded in 27 working days. The landlord did request an extension. As per its policy this needed to be agreed with the resident. The resident emailed on 24 May 2023 to the extension request stating she was not happy with this. It is also unclear why the landlord needed more time to review the complaint. As such the landlord failed to act within its complaint policies.
  3. Between the stage 1 and stage 2 the resident asked to speak with the landlord. The request was made on 10 May 2023, which was a Wednesday. The landlord responded to advise it could not call the resident until the following Monday. This caused further frustration for the resident. Whilst we acknowledge that the landlord needs to manage its workloads, it is noted that the resident had already had a poor experience with communication up until this point.
  4. The landlord reviewed its complaint handling in the stage 2 response. This was made up of £50 for each error it identified. The errors were:
    1. failing to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint within 5 working days
    2. failing to escalate the stage 2 response when it should have
    3. allocating the stage 1 to a member of staff who was subject to the complaint
    4. failing to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint in 5 working days
    5. for the overall experience. The landlord provided £250 in total.
  5. It stated that as part of a recent large-scale merger it was focusing on the root causes of complaints. It also said that it had taken on more staff and provided training in complaints handling. It was positive that the landlord recognised the negative impact of poor complaints handling and identified areas of improvement.
  6. There were failures in the landlord’s complaints handling. However, the landlord offered a reasonable amount of compensation for these. It also acknowledged the failures and identified learning. As such there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the request to downsize to a smaller property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident and provide support in finding a resolution to the under-occupancy concern. This support may include signposting for financial support and exploring any further options to exchange the property.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the £250 compensation for complaint handling failures.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord seek legal advice to see if there are any options to act on a discretionary basis, to allow a mutual exchange, for the benefit of the resident and the landlord.