Peabody Trust (202311449)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311449

Peabody Trust

13 March 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 reports of a burglary at the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom third-floor flat. The landlord is a housing association and freeholder of the property. The landlord has no recorded health vulnerabilities for the resident.
On 8 September 2022 a burglar stole items from the resident’s home. She said access had been possible due to unsecured scaffolding ladders outside the property. She took photos of the ladders the following morning and considered the landlord negligent. She informed the landlord she had no contents insurance and attempted to make a claim through the landlord’s insurer.
On 3 October 2022 the resident attempted to complain to the landlord about the burglary. The landlord contacted the resident the next day. It advised this was a matter for its insurance team, provided the appropriate contact information, and closed her complaint. Upon consideration of the resident’s claim, the landlord informed her to make a claim via its contractor’s insurer.
On 3 March 2023 the resident said she wanted to complain. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her insurance claim and its lack of communication.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 12 July 2023 and sent its stage 1 response on 11 August 2023. It said it understood she sought compensation for the items stolen from her home. Its response said it:
1. was sorry for the delayed complaint response
2. had only recorded a complaint about the quality of workmanship in September 2022 and due to an oversight, had only passed her insurance claim to its contractor in November 2022
3. completed its own investigation of her concerns in January 2023 and sent its findings to its contractor to consider
4. apologised that its contractor’s insurance company did not act until April 2023
5. understood the contractor’s insurance company had requested receipts for the stolen items which she had not supplied
6. understood the outcome of the insurance investigation had found the contractor not liable for her losses
7. understood the contractor had offered a £200 goodwill gesture due to its response delays
8. had taken learning from the resident’s feedback and reminded its contractors to secure all ladders at the end of each working day
9. offered £100 in addition to the contractor’s offer for her time, trouble, and inconvenience
On 22 August 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord’s contractor had declined her claim and she remained unhappy with the compensation offered. She said the offer did not reflect the financial loss she had experienced. The landlord acknowledged her request on 22 and 29 August 2023.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 20 September 2023. It said it was unable to escalate her insurance complaint as it was about a declined claim through its contractor. However, it would consider its customer service and communication failures. It acknowledge the time, trouble, and inconvenience she had experienced and increased its offer of compensation to £275.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She expressed dissatisfaction with its compensation offer and commented on window repairs at her home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident was unhappy with the outcome of an insurance claim which she made through the landlord’s contractor. Therefore, in line with the Scheme, there was no landlord and tenant relationship for us to consider. This would be outside of our jurisdiction and a matter between the resident and the contractor.
However, while the outcome of the claim falls outside of our jurisdiction, we will consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way.
In contact with us in August 2023 the resident referred to issues with her window locks. She did not raise this in her original complaint. Nor was it part of the landlord’s final complaint response on 20 September 2023.
We can only consider matters that have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure (ICP). This is for the landlord to have opportunity to respond or put things right. We encourage the resident to raise this issue with the landlord if she has not already done so.

Response to the resident’s reports of a burglary at the property

The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy states it expects residents to have their own contents insurance. By doing so, the resident protects themselves against accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage, or burglary.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider a resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience when affected by a service failure. It will offer compensation of £1 to £450 for minor or moderate disruptions.
The landlord accepts its oversight in September 2022 delayed it referring the resident to its insurance team until October 2022.
While initially delayed, the evidence shows the landlord’s insurance team replied to the resident on 26 October 2022. It advised the resident that the reported incident and claims of negligence related to contractor ‘A’. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with the contact and insurance information for contractor A.
Between December 2022 to January 2023 the landlord visited the resident and produced an investigation report. It accepted she had reported the burglary to it and the police and acknowledged it had initially failed to provide her with a response. It assessed the photographs supplied by the resident and concluded that it would be “reasonable” for contractor A to look at the resident’s claim.
This demonstrated the landlord took the resident’s report seriously and thoroughly investigated her concerns. While there is no admission of any failure, it was reasonable in the circumstances to provide its findings to its contractor for further investigation.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the time taken by contractor A to respond to her claim. While this would cause upset, this is a matter between the resident and contractor A.
That said, as contractor A had acted on the landlord’s behalf, it is reasonable to have expected the landlord to have monitored its communication and progress with her claim. This did not initially happen.
Between May 2023 to June 2023 the landlord sought the resident’s consent to share information with contractor A’s loss adjustors. The loss adjustor’s investigation of the resident’s claim concluded that the contractor was not liable for the resident’s losses.
Within the loss adjustors report, it identified contractor ‘B’. It said contractor B had been on site and responsible for the scaffolding’s removal between 8 to 9 September 2022. It provided the resident with the insurance information for contractor B. The loss adjustor also said if contractor B had left a ladder unguarded, which there had been no admission, it would be a matter between the resident and contractor B’s insurance company.
While this outcome and delay would cause upset, this would be a matter between the resident and the insurance company. That said, it is unclear why the landlord’s own investigation in January 2023 did not identify this second contractor. Had it done so, it may have saved the resident time and trouble pursuing her claim through the wrong insurance company.
The evidence shows that contractor A apologised for the time taken to conclude its investigation. While it did not accept fault or liability for the burglary, it offered the resident £200 as a gesture of goodwill. Whether the resident chose to accept this or considered it reasonable is a matter between her and contractor A.
The landlord’s stage 1 response summarised the timeline of events. It apologised for the delays and offered £100 for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience. It demonstrated learning by reminding its contractors to secure ladders overnight and reminded the resident of the goodwill gesture available from contractor A.
The landlord’s stage 2 response demonstrated a thorough investigation. It acknowledged delays in its complaint responses and gaps in communication. It accepted its failure to monitor the resident’s insurance claim through its contractor. And it accepted this had left the resident feeling unheard. It was appropriate for it to apologise and increase its offer of compensation to £250. This was consistent with its compensation policy.
While the resident considered the landlord had not covered her losses, there is no evidence that the landlord was responsible for this. Its policies encourage residents to insure themselves and it demonstrated ensuring the appropriate insurance company investigated her claim. Any dissatisfaction regarding the loss adjustor’s decision would be a matter between the resident and the insurance company. Furthermore, it would also be the resident’s decision to pursue a claim through the second contractor.
The landlord has shown it accepted that its communication fell short of its own expectations. Its stage 2 response demonstrated it considered the resident’s feedback regarding the timeline of events and the effect it had had on her. This was appropriate. We would therefore have made a finding of maladministration but for the steps it took to put things right. Therefore, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Complaint handling

The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. It would acknowledge complaints at stage 1 and 2 of its ICP within 5 working days. At stage 1, it would respond to complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. This was appropriate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), 1 April 2022.
The landlord’s complaints policy states there are things it will not deal with through its complaints process. This includes insurance claims and appeals.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will offer between £25 to £100 for a ‘minor’ complaint handling failure. This would include a failure to follow its complaints policy and procedure and when it considers the level of impact to the resident low.
The evidence shows the resident complained on 3 October 2022. However, it was consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy to direct the resident to its insurance team.
On 9 March 2023 the resident chased the landlord. Her email clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of communication received from the landlord or its contractor and she asked how to complain. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not respond to her concerns or offer her guidance. While the landlord’s complaints policy states it will not include insurance matters, this was about the landlord’s communication. As such, it should have responded to her concerns.
The resident raised similar dissatisfaction on 26 June 2023. She said she was confused by the landlord’s insurance claim process and its complaints procedures. She repeated her desire to complain. It is again unclear what steps the landlord took to respond to her until its acknowledgement letter on 12 July 2023. This was not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy and 7 working days late.
There is evidence the landlord explained a delay gathering evidence from its contractor. As such, it agreed a stage 1 extension date of 4 August 2023 with the resident. This was appropriate and consistent with its complaints policy and the Code.
However, the landlord missed the agreed date of 4 August 2023, sending it 5 working days later. We would therefore have expected it to have explained any further delay to the resident, which it did not do.
It was appropriate for the landlord’s stage 1 response to say sorry for the delay. It also demonstrated learning by explaining it had reminded all contractors to secure scaffolding ladders at the end of the day. This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to prevent similar incidents happening again.
The landlord sent its stage 2 on 20 September 2023, 3 working days after its 20 working day response time.
The landlord’s stage 2 response demonstrated a thorough investigation. It acknowledged delays in its complaint responses and offered £25 for its delay to provide a stage 1 response. However, it made no reference to its stage 2 response delay. While this particular delay was minimal, the recurring failure did not demonstrate the landlord had learned from its stage 1 response.
When there has been an admission of failure, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
The landlord showed that it accepted that its stage 1 complaint handling fell short and apologised. However, while it was initially reasonable to direct the resident to its insurance team in October 2022, it is unclear why it did not respond to or offer guidance when she repeated her complaint in March 2023. This caused an unreasonable amount of time before the landlord addressed the resident’s complaint. Had the landlord communicated more effectively, it may have avoided this delay.
Based on our findings we find service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s offer of £25 was not proportionate to reflect the resident’s loss of confidence in it service. As such we order the landlord to pay a total of £75 to put things right. This is consistent with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

Determination

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 response to the resident’s reports of a burglary at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £75 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord may deduct £25 offered at stage 2 of its ICP if already paid.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord reoffer the resident £250 for its response to her reports of a burglary at the property, if not already paid.
We recommend the landlord provides the resident with the contact details of its contractor who offered her £200 as a gesture of goodwill.