Peabody Trust (202308088)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308088

Peabody Trust

6 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s dissatisfaction about an annual rent increase.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports of communal issues and a water leak in his property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom flat in a block. The landlord is a housing association and freeholder of the property. The landlord has no known health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household.
In May 2023 the resident, his member of parliament (MP), and the landlord exchanged correspondence. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s annual rent increase. The MP informed the resident of the landlord’s explanation for the increase on 25 May 2023.
On 29 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He considered the landlord’s annual rent increase “unfair and unjustified” and he remained dissatisfied with its explanation for the increase. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of communal repairs and estate management issues for the block. This included reoccurring false fire alarms, a broken lift, loss of water supply, and poor communal cleaning. The resident also described how a leak from a property above had left a water mark on his kitchen ceiling.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 30 August 2023. It sent its stage 1 response on 14 September 2023. The landlord explained that it had increased the rent in line with the government’s rent standards which capped the increase at 7% for the financial year 2023 to 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s repair reports and raised jobs for the appropriate teams to resolve.
Unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response, the resident escalated his complaint on 27 November 2023.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 4 December 2023. It sent its stage 2 response on 27 December 2023. The landlord’s response said it:
1. Did not uphold the resident’s complaint regarding its rent increase.
2. Upheld, apologised, and offered £255 for identified service failures with its handling of repairs, water supply, and cleaning standards.
3. Upheld, apologised, and offered £300 for complaint handling failures.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. He described how the rent increase would cause him financial hardship. He also did not consider the landlord’s explanation sufficient justification for the rent increase.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme governs what we can and cannot consider and what is within our jurisdiction. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we cannot investigate a complaint.
Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
In response to the rising cost of living, the government announced a change to social housing rent calculations from April 2023. In doing so, the government capped the social housing rent increase at 7% from 3 April 2023. Without the cap, landlords could have increased rents by the consumer price index (CPI) plus 1%. This was the equivalent of 11.1% as of April 2023. Most housing association landlords provide at least 4 weeks’ notice of any annual increase each year.
The resident’s complaint includes concerns regarding the level of rent increase. The landlord informed the resident in April 2023 of the increase starting 1 June 2023. Having given more than 4 weeks’ notice of the increase, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and explained the government’s cap and calculations.
Any dissatisfaction regarding the reasonableness, liability, or the methodology used to calculate annual rent requires a decision by a court or tribunal service. Therefore, this matter falls outside of our jurisdiction and may be within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s dissatisfaction about an annual rent increase, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Scope of investigation

Within the resident’s correspondence, he raised an identical rent increase complaint to the landlord for the financial year 2024 to 2025. It is not evident if this has completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and may also fall outside of our jurisdiction. This will not form part of this investigation.
We also note the resident raised a new complaint regarding a water leak on or around 15 January 2024. This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s specific complaint on 29 April 2023, through to its final response on 27 December 2023. Matters beyond the landlord’s final response must first complete the landlord’s own internal complaints process (ICP). If the resident progresses the complaint through the landlord’s ICP, and remains dissatisfied with the outcome, he may then be able to refer the complaint to us.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states its expected repair timescales. It says it will:
1. Attend and complete an emergency repair (during normal working hours) within 4 hours. This may be a temporary repair in certain circumstances.
2. Attend an emergency repair (during out of hours) within 4 hours and made safe within 24 hours.
3. Complete non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days.
4. Complete programmed or specialist works within 60 calendar days. This may include repairs that are more complex in nature, require specialist trades such as roofers, technical diagnosis, or additional time due to manufacturing needs.

Handling of the resident’s reports of communal issues and a water leak in his property

False fire alarms

The landlord received reports of intermittent fire alarm faults from various residents between May to August 2023. The evidence shows the landlord attended to the reports as emergencies. This was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
The landlord’s stage 2 response in September 2023 acknowledged that its investigation into the faults remained ongoing. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to arrange for its electrical contractor to contact the resident to provide an update.
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 says the responsibility for fire safety in the shared parts of a residential building falls to whoever has ‘control of the premises.’ In this case the landlord was responsible as the freeholder of the block. Therefore, it was appropriate the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and employed a specialist contractor to ensure the alarms were in working order.
In December 2023 the landlord identified multiple addresses within the block where it required access. It identified concerns that devices may be missing, tampered with, or having low batteries. As such, it considered these issues could be triggering the false alarms. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its staff. In doing so, the landlord considered it necessary to replace all batteries in each property within the block and it sought to arrange this. This was reasonable.
The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm Regulations 2015 (as amended by Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm Regulations 2022) impose a legal requirement on social landlords of accommodation, occupied under a tenancy or license. Which is, to ensure that alarms are in proper working order when it first installs them. Landlord’s must then check that alarms in its properties are working at the start of a new tenancy or licence. In this case, there is no evidence the landlord did not do this.
A tenant or licensee is responsible for testing the alarms during their tenancy. They should also contact the landlord if an alarm stops working to arrange for new batteries or a replacement alarm. In this case, the landlord identified that it had tenants who had not contacted it.
False sounding alarms would understandably cause distress. However, the landlord demonstrated it was acting on the resident’s reports in line with its emergency response times. The landlord also took steps to investigate the root cause. In doing so, it identified households that needed to take action or allow the landlord to assist to put things right. As such, we find no failure with the landlord’s response to this matter.

Broken lift

The evidence shows the landlord received multiple reports of lift faults from various residents between May to September 2023. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord demonstrated attending to these reports as emergency repairs. The landlord’s records state it left the lifts in service following each repair. However, the landlord does not dispute it received repeat calls to return to the block during this period.
The evidence shows the landlord employed a specialist contractor to investigate the reported intermittent faults. In doing so, on 3 October 2023 the landlord raised work orders to undertake recommended work and to clean the lift pit and shaft. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of an independent contractor, which it did. The landlord recorded the works as completed on 26 October 2023. This was appropriate and within the landlord’s 28 calendar day responsive repair time.

Loss of water supply

The landlord’s compensation policy states it will pay residents £5 for each day during a total loss of mains water. This is where it is the landlord’s responsibility to resolve, after the first 24 hours, and if it has not provided alternative provision, such as bottled water.
The landlord does not dispute that the resident was without mains water supply on 26 June 2023. The evidence shows the landlord arranged bottled water deliveries through its contractor. The landlord also provided all residents with updates regarding the approximate delivery time of 11pm. This demonstrated the landlord’s actions and its communication with the resident.
That said, the landlord does not dispute that some addresses within the resident’s block reported delayed or no bottled water deliveries. While the cause of this issue is unclear, it was appropriate that the landlord arranged additional deliveries once notified.
The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for delivering water “late in the day” and offered the resident £5 compensation. This was consistent with its compensation policy.
The landlord also demonstrated learning. It fed back the resident’s reported bottled water delivery issues to its Contracts Manager. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord’s attempts to prevent similar delivery issues happening again.

Poor communal cleaning

During the landlord’s stage 1 investigation, it raised a job to inspect the resident’s communal cleaning reports. It also said it would contact him to discuss matters further. Although these actions were reasonable, the landlord has been unable to demonstrate how it monitored the progress of this matter. Nor how it kept the resident informed. This is a failure in the landlord’s communication. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for this failure in its stage 2 response.

Response to the resident’s reports of a leak

On or around 15 July 2023 the resident reported a leak through his flat’s ceiling. The landlord’s records show that it attended in line with its emergency responsive repair times. This was appropriate.
The records also show that the landlord identified no damage to any pipework above the property and referred the matter to its roofers to investigate further. The landlord demonstrated it attended to make safe any immediate issues and referred the matter to a specialist team when the resident described experiencing issues when it rained.
In early August 2023 the landlord arranged a survey of what it described as a playground installed above the resident’s property. Given the landlord had not identified any leaking pipework, this step demonstrated its actions to identify the root cause.
That said, we have not identified any records of the outcome of this survey or whether any work took place to remedy the resident’s issues. This indicates a record keeping failure which the landlord should consider during refresher training sessions.
On 29 August 2023 the resident complained about a water stain left on his ceiling. The landlord’s stage 2 response in December 2023 explained it had attempted unsuccessfully to speak to the resident when he raised this concern. However, it had spoken to the resident’s wife, who confirmed it had resolved the leak. This indicates the landlord achieved its 60–calendar day programmed and or specialist repair timeframe. This was appropriate.
Furthermore, the landlord then sent an email to the resident on 18 September 2023 asking the resident to contact it to raise a “making right a repairs case.” We understand this to be about the landlord putting right the decorative damage. However, there is no evidence the resident responded to this email.
In summary, the landlord’s stage 2 response in December 2023 explained that it had attempted to call the resident as it considered it had answered his complaint in full and resolved all issues. However, it also accepted that it did not have record of completing work to the resident’s stained ceiling. This was not appropriate and indicates a record keeping failure.
Although the landlord confirmed that its call attempt had been unsuccessful, the landlord provided contact details for the resident to respond if the matter remained outstanding. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord’s attempts to ensure the resident was satisfied with its actions.
The landlord’s stage 2 response accepted its repair and communication services had fallen below its expected standards. It offered the resident £250 compensation to put right the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused. Increasing its total award for all repair related matters to £255. This was appropriate and consistent with our remedies guide.
Based on our findings, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of communal issues and a water leak in his property. However, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to ensure it has resolved the issues with the resident’s water stained ceiling.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord referred to its relevant complaint’s policy. In which, it said it would send a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 15 working days at stage 2.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days. Also, for landlord’s to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord’s relevant policy met the minimum expectations of the Code.
The Code states that within a complaint acknowledgement, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking.
The landlord’s compensation policy states if its investigation finds it has not managed a complaint effectively, it may offer compensation. Its policy considers the extent of any identified service failures and sets a compensation guide between £1 to £250.
The resident complained on 29 August 2023. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 1 working day. However, the landlord’s acknowledgement did not set out its understanding of the resident’s complaint. This was not consistent with the Code.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response 2 working days late. It was not appropriate for the landlord not to acknowledge this or offer any apology.
The landlord’s stage 1 response demonstrated raising multiple repairs with the appropriate teams and assured the resident of the steps it would take to put things right. While this was reasonable, the landlord’s complaint response simply left matters with individual departments. It has not demonstrated how it monitored the progress of each of these matters. Had it done so, it may have helped to resolve the resident’s dissatisfaction sooner. And improve the landlord and resident relationship at the time.
The resident escalated his complaint on 27 November 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 4 December 2023. This was in line with the expected response times of the Code. Furthermore, the landlord summarised its understanding of the resident’s complaint. This demonstrated the landlord had learned from stage 1 and improved its process to align to the expectations of the Code.
However, the landlord informed the resident it would send its stage 2 response within 15 working days. It missed this deadline by 5 working days. While the landlord sent its response within the 20 working days expected by the Code, it had promised an earlier response. Therefore, it was not appropriate that it did not act in line with the expectations it had raised.
The landlord’s stage 2 response showed improved complaint handling practices. It apologised for identified failures during its stage 1 investigation and offered £300 compensation. This was consistent with its compensation policy.
The Code states, when sending complaint responses, landlord’s must define its understanding of the resident’s complaint and use clear plain language. In this case, the landlord simply copied almost 2 pages of the resident’s complaint into its own response. This did not demonstrate the landlord’s understanding of our expectations and indicates a training need at the time of this complaint.
However, the landlord’s stage 2 response demonstrated learning by providing feedback to the relevant teams. It recognised delays to resolve the resident’s repair reports and gaps in its communication. Furthermore, the landlord explained how it had increased the size of its complaint handling team following a merger. As such, it said it hoped to respond to all complaints on time in future. This demonstrated the landlord acknowledged where its service had fallen short and how it intended to put things right.
The landlord’s stage 2 response details steps taken to remedy the resident’s reported issues. It also demonstrated efforts to contact the resident to discuss further and or provided him opportunity to respond if matters remained outstanding. This demonstrates the landlord’s improved efforts to work the resident to monitor and resolve matters.
Based on our findings, we find the landlord offered reasonable redress. We may have found maladministration but for the landlord’s efforts to acknowledge identified service failures and its steps to put things right. The landlord’s offer of £300 compensation was consistent with our remedies guide where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident.
Issues identified in this case are similar to cases already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous orders. Including to complete additional record keeping and complaint handling training. So, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made. The landlord should consider whether there are any issues arising from this case that require further action.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s dissatisfaction of an annual rent increase, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal issues and a water leak in his property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord:
1. Reoffers the resident £300 compensation for its complaint handling failures, if not already paid.
2. Reoffers the resident £255 compensation for the inconvenience caused due to its handling of the resident’s reports of communal issues and a water leak in his property.
3. Contacts the resident to ensure it has completed all work to the resident’s leak stained ceiling.