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

Peabody Trust (202318378)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318378

Peabody Trust

24 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports that other residents were using the communal washing line area to socialise.
    2. Reports that the bin storage area was unused.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2014. The property is a flat in a block. The block has an outdoor communal area that hosts a washing line and a bin storage area. A security code is required to access the bin storage area.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord through its website on 14 June 2023. He was unhappy neighbours were treating the communal area as their own personal garden. He also said it had replaced the washing line with a bin store that was unused.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 17 July 2023. It told him the communal bins were being stored in the bin store. It said it had not removed the washing line and it remained available for residents to use. It also said it had spoken to his neighbours and asked them to keep their voices down.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 25 July 2023. He provided photographs showing that the communal bins were not stored in the bin store. He said his tenancy agreement did not mention that the block had a social space. He said the noise of other residents socialising was having a negative effect on his mental health.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 August 2023. It was satisfied the actions it had taken to address the bin store issue, and the use of the communal area were appropriate. It agreed to contact the council to request its refuse workers returned the bins to the bin store. It would also monitor the use of the communal area over the summer.
  6. The resident contacted this Service on 11 August 2023. He was unhappy with the landlord’s response and complaint handling. He said it was being dishonest about the bin store being used. He was also unhappy that it had not considered his mental health in its stage 2 response. He wanted the landlord pay him compensation. He wants it to either stop residents using the washing line area to socialise or to cordon the area off.
  7. The landlord considered its complaint handling after the resident had contacted this Service. It identified that it had not followed its complaint policy at stage 2. It apologised for that and awarded him £250 compensation on 12 October 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scoping

  1. As part of the outcome to his complaint the resident also said he wants the landlord to take disciplinary action against named members of its staff. It would be helpful to explain that this Service would not order a landlord that it should take disciplinary action against a member of staff or terminate their employment. Terms and conditions of employment will be set out in a contractual agreement between a landlord and its staff, and it is for a landlord to decide if a matter we have investigated calls for such action, not the Ombudsman.
  2. During his complaint about the use of communal areas the resident has said the introduction of a social space is a breach of his tenancy agreement. It is helpful to explain at this point that this Service cannot decide on whether there has been a breach of contract because those matters require a legally binding decision, which the Ombudsman is unable to provide. Our investigation has considered how the landlord handled the concerns the resident raised about the use of communal areas. If the resident remains concerned about the legality of the use of the block’s communal areas he may want to seek legal advice.

Other residents use of the communal area

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the property is a 1 bedroom 2-person unit. It includes no mention of the types of communal areas within the block or their intended use.
  2. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy says that it in the first instance it takes a tenancy management approach to reports of ASB. After the first report of ASB it should remind residents of their responsibilities or take other preventative action. If the behaviour continues and it can evidence that it is ASB it should then investigate further in line with its policy.
  3. In June 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that residents of another flat in the block were using the communal washing line area to socialise. He was concerned they were using it as their own personal garden. He found their talking a disturbance. It was preventing him from using the washing line.
  4. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it spoke to the residents who were using the communal area to socialise. It had told them that they could cause a disturbance and asked them to keep their voices down. The other residents understood that the space was communal and not their own private garden. It also said that residents were welcome to have conversations outside of the block without it considering them to be taking over the space. It assured the resident the washing line remained available for all residents to use. The landlord’s approach was appropriate and proportionate. It followed its ASB policy by taking a tenancy management approach to the report of ASB.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint because he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. He asked it if the other resident’s social area overrode his inconvenience, annoyance, and depression. He thought the landlord’s allowed use of the communal area as a social space altered the terms of his tenancy agreement because there was no mention of the block having a designated social area.
  6. In its stage 2 response the landlord said the washing line remained a communal area. It was accessible to all residents of the block. It said it had further interviewed the residents of the flat and they said they used the area after work for short periods. The other residents had assured it that they did not stay out there for long. The landlord agreed to monitor the situation during the summer months. It would also regularly remind residents that when using the communal areas of the block they should not cause a nuisance to others. The landlord’s approach was reasonable and again reflected its ASB policy. Its assurances that it would monitor the situation showed that it continued to take the resident’s concerns seriously.
  7. When the resident contacted this Service in August 2023 he copied in the landlord. He repeated his neighbours use of the communal area was having a negative impact on his mental health. After receiving that e-mail it was appropriate the landlord referred him to its advice and wellbeing service. The resident refused its offer of assistance.
  8. We appreciate landlords must balance the differing needs of their residents. When considering the resident’s concerns the landlord has taken proportionate action. It did not consider the neighbours behaviour to amount to ASB so it was reasonable that it took a tenancy management approach in line with its ASB policy. It was appropriate that it agreed to monitor the situation in the summer months in case the issue escalated. While it should have addressed his mental health concerns when he first raised it, he did not accept its offer of assistance 1 month later. The detriment of that shortcoming is not sufficient to prevent a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that other residents were using the communal washing line area to socialise.

Bin Store

  1. The resident contacted the landlord in June 2023. He said he was unhappy the bin storage was unused.
  2. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that it introduced the communal bin store following a consultation with the block. It said all resident’s who responded had been in favour of the bin store. It said it had spoken with the member of staff responsible for the block. They had said the bins in the bin store were being used and there were no issues with the cupboard area. It said the introduction of the cupboard had been a beneficial tool for discouraging fly tipping. In speaking to the member of staff responsible for the block the landlord showed it had taken investigated the resident’s concerns.
  3. The resident e-mailed the landlord with photographs on 25 July 2023. He said they showed the bins were not being stored in the storage area. He wanted to know if the council’s refuse workers knew the security code for the bin storage area.
  4. As part of the stage 2 investigation the landlord found that the refuse workers were not returning the bins to the bin storage area. In its stage 2 response it told the resident it would speak with the council to work with it to enable its staff to return the bins to the bin storage area after it empties them. It also said if the bins did not fit it would ask the council if it could replace them with bins that did. It was appropriate that the landlord completed further a further investigation following the further information the resident had provided. Its response was reasonable because a collaborative approach with the council was required to resolve the issue with the bin store.
  5. As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord for evidence it contacted the council after its stage 2 response. It told us it had worked with the council to resolve the issue but was unable to provide evidence. It said residents had not reported the bin store as an issue in the block since 2023. While it should have retained evidence of its conversations with the council, given no further issues have been reported it is likely that the landlord followed up on its assurance.
  6. The landlord’s complaints process worked as it was supposed to in investigating the resident’s concerns about the bin store. After he provided further evidence it reviewed its position at stage 2. While it should have kept a record of its communication with the council it appears it was proactive in resolving the issue. For those reasons there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the bin store was unused.

Complaint Handling

  1. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords should have a 2-stage complaints policy. They should ensure a different member of staff investigates each stage. The Code does not say that a resident’s previous complaint about a landlord’s member of staff would prevent the same member of staff from investigating a future complaint made by the same resident. Landlords should acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. They should provide their stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days. If they need an extension to the deadline they should inform the resident in advance.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Code. It states that stage 1 complaints should be investigated by a member of staff who is fully trained to handle complaints. An independent team of senior complaint reviewers should investigate stage 2 complaints.
  3. The resident said that he first e-mailed the landlord to complain on 10 June 2023. A copy of that e-mail has not been provided to this Service. He submitted a complaint through its website on 14 June 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge his stage 1 complaint until 10 July 2023. The delay in acknowledging the complaint was unreasonable. It provided its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknlowdgement.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 25 July 2023. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged his stage 2 complaint. There was only a minor detriment caused by that failing because it provided its stage 2 response within 5 working days. A different member of staff responded to the complaint though the landlord recognised they were a member of a team that was not independent of the complaint. That meant it had not followed its own complaints policy when responding to his stage 2 complaint.
  5. When the resident contacted this Service he was unhappy that his complaints had been investigated by members of staff he had previously complained about. As his current complaint was not a staff complaint the landlord could allocate his complaint to whichever member of staff it considered suitable to complete the investigation. The failure at stage 2 of the complaint was not related to the resident’s previous staff complaints. However, in failing to follow its own policy it could have served to undermine the resident’s confidence in its response.
  6. The landlord did not apologise for the delay in acknowledging the resident’s stage 1 complaint. That delay meant that its response to the stage 1 complaint was also late. It also did not follow its own complaints policy when it did not allocate the stage 2 complaint to an independent team. For those reasons there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  7. In October 2023, 2 months after its stage 2 response the landlord identified its failure to allocate the stage 2 investigation to an independent team. While it was reasonable that it apologised and awarded the resident £250 compensation as that offer was made outside of its internal complaint procedure it does not prevent the determination of maladministration That amount was the maximum it could award under its compensation policy for an extensive complaint handling failure. It did not recognise its delay in acknowledging his stage 1 complaint. Had it done so it is likely its award of compensation would have remained the same given it was at the limit of its policy. As that amount also falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance it would not be proportionate to order the landlord to pay a further amount of compensation for its delay at stage 1. However, it should apologise to the resident for that delay.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that other residents have been using the communal washing line area to socialise.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the bin storage area was unused.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should apologise, in writing to the resident for its delay in acknowledging his stage 1 complaint.
  2. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £250 compensation it awarded in October 2023.
  3. It should provide proof of compliance to this Service within 4 weeks.