From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Peabody Trust (202319177)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319177

Peabody Trust

22 April 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 lift repairs.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a second floor flat, in a block with one lift.
  2. Between August 2022 and October 2024 the landlord raised more than 60 works orders for lift repairs, which it attended. The majority of these were for breakdowns and had been reported by residents and/or the caretaker.
  3. On 9 August 2023 the resident made his first complaint to the landlord. He said the lift was constantly breaking down and people had been trapped numerous times. He felt the landlord was not completing repairs properly. He asked why he was paying the amount of service charge when the lift could not be fixed.
  4. The landlord’s first stage 1 response of 14 August 2023 said it was not able to rule out that the continued breakdowns were a result of poor quality work. However, it believed other issues were more likely impacting this. While there may have been a higher number of lift repairs, this did not mean the service charge would increase. It acknowledged there had been poor customer service and communication failures and offered £100 compensation for this.
  5. On 4 September 2023 the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said the issue had been ongoing for months and the landlord had not taken satisfactory action to resolve it. He said his service charge had increased but there was no plan in place to fix the lift or make sure it was safe and reliable.
  6. The landlord sent its first stage 2 response on 1 November 2023. It acknowledged there had been delays in its complaint handling and apologised for this. It said the number of lift repairs raised for breakdowns in the last 6 months exceeded the national average of 4 per year. It committed to carrying out a review of the repair history for the lift for the last 12 months to identify any issues. It suggested the resident contact the service charge team to raise his query about this issue. It confirmed the complaint was partially upheld because of how it had handled his enquiries and concerns. It offered £350 compensation (£200 for communication failures and £150 for complaint handling).
  7. The resident made a second complaint on 2 July 2024. He said the lift was consistently out of service and the landlord was not fixing it properly. He asked why it was charging him service charge when the lift was regularly broken. He said there was no communication about why the lift was not working.
  8. On 23 July 2024 the landlord confirmed the lift was working but a replacement part was needed. It said the delay in this being fitted could be contributing to the frequent breakdowns. The same day, the landlord sent its second stage 1 response. This acknowledged there had been service failure because it had not been able to permanently resolve the issue. It apologised and offered £75 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience suffered.
  9. The resident asked to escalate his second complaint to stage 2 the same day. He said the landlord had lied because the lift was still out of order. He felt the compensation offered was insufficient and the matter was unresolved, as the lift was still not working.
  10. On 2 October 2024 the landlord sent its second stage 2 response. This said the information provided at stage 1 was correct and the resolution offered was fair and reasonable.
  11. The resident asked us to investigate his complaints in February 2025, and said the lift was still not working. He wanted this to be fixed, a refund of his service charge, and compensation for the upset caused.

Assessment and findings

Handling of lift repairs

  1. The landlord is responsible for lift repairs in line with its repairs policy. This says it is normally responsible for communal area repairs, which would include lifts. For lift breakdowns, it is reasonable that the landlord deals with these as emergency repairs and its repairs policy says it will attend these within 24 hours. From the evidence provided, we can see the landlord attended when works orders were raised, but it is not always clear when. Therefore, we have been unable to assess whether the landlord complied with its repairs policy in respect of its response time for these jobs.
  2. The resident’s main concern was the number of repairs needed and the quality of works carried out, rather than the timeframe in which the landlord attended. Therefore, our inability to assess the timeliness of the landlord’s response for the emergency repairs is not a significant issue for this investigation. However, this is likely to be an issue for other cases. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to review how it records attendance for emergency works orders. This should ensure that it can clearly evidence compliance with the committed response time set out in its repairs policy.
  3. The resident reported that there have been a number of instances where the lift has been out of service for several weeks at a time. The landlord told him in the first stage 1 and 2 responses that it faced wider challenges with lift maintenance due to a shortage of lift specialists, and the majority of the manufacturing for lifts happening outside the UK. It said this meant it could take time for parts to be delivered. These explanations meant it was understandable that, in some instances, delays in carrying out lift repairs were beyond the landlord’s control.
  4. When repairs are delayed, landlords should proactively tell residents this and keep them updated on progress. This provides reassurance that it has not forgotten about the repair and that it is taking the matter seriously. There is no evidence the landlord did that in this case and it was only in response to the formal complaint that the landlord provided this explanation. This amounts to maladministration and made the resident feel the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
  5. The landlord acknowledged in November 2023 that the number of lift breakdowns was higher than average. This was a reasonable conclusion considering the number of breakdowns reported and works orders raised. The resident said he believed the lift continuously broke down because the landlord did not complete repairs properly. While understandable that he believed this, it was also reasonable that the landlord could not confirm this to be the case.
  6. In the first stage 2 response sent in November 2023 the landlord committed to investigate the repeated breakdowns by completing a review of the repairs history, which was sensible. However, there is no evidence it did this and the regular breakdowns continued. This resulted in the resident getting trapped in the lift on more than one occasion. This amounts to maladministration and was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the matter sooner.
  7. The landlord took a reactive approach to this issue by responding to reported breakdowns and completing identified works. While this is normally a reasonable approach to responsive repairs, in this case, considering the number of issues reported, the landlord should have taken a more proactive approach. This was supported by operatives who had attended recommending a technical visit was done to further investigate the repeated breakdowns.
  8. This was a sensible recommendation in order to identify any underlying issues that were contributing to the repeated breakdowns. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord did this. This meant the breakdowns continued and the resident was inconvenienced due to the lift being regularly out of service. He has told us this included him having to carry his partner up the stairs when she was on crutches for 6 weeks and having deliveries cancelled and incurring additional charges to rearrange them. This amounts to maladministration.
  9. In November 2022, September 2023, April 2024 and August 2024 the landlord raised works orders for lift defects that had been identified as a result of the periodic inspections carried out by its insurance company. On each of these 4 occasions, it noted the same works were needed. It is not clear whether this was because the defects were ongoing and not repaired, or because they were happening repeatedly and needed repairing multiple times.
  10. Either way, this is a concern as the same works were raised multiple times over an almost 2 year period. The landlord should have done more to permanently resolve the issues. It noted in February 2025 that all defects had been completed. As this was 2 years and 3 months later, this is an unreasonable and extended delay which amounts to maladministration. 
  11. The resident has told us that the lift broke down in July 2024 and is still not working to date. On 23 July 2024 the landlord told him it was waiting for a replacement part and, for reasons set out above, it is reasonable this may have taken longer than expected through no fault of the landlord. Considering the nature of the repair, it was reasonable that the landlord treated this as specialist works, which its repairs policy said it would complete within 60 days.  This has not happened and as the lift is still out of service 9 months later, this is an unreasonable delay.
  12. The reason for this delay is unclear. In September and November 2024 the landlord told the resident it was waiting for parts to be delivered, but we have seen no evidence of any further updates to confirm what is happening. This is despite the resident saying he has chased updates on a number of occasions. The lack of proactive updates and failure to keep the resident informed about the progress of the repair is disappointing. This has meant he has incurred time and trouble in chasing updates and been left uncertain on when the repair will be completed. This amounts to maladministration and has caused him to lose faith in the landlord.
  13. When we asked the landlord in March 2025 to tell us the current position on the lift, it replied that no works were outstanding. This is incorrect, as the resident has told us the lift is still not working so there must be outstanding works. It is extremely concerning that the lift has been out of service for so long, and the misinformation provided to us suggests a lack of landlord visibility of the issue. This is supported by the resident who has told us that when he has called for updates, he has been told there are no works outstanding. This has been frustrating for him and made him feel that the landlord did not know what it was doing.
  14. Considering the length of time this matter has been ongoing, it is important that the landlord takes action as quickly as possible to resolve it. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to identify a member of staff (management level or above) to manage and progress this issue and be the single point of contact for residents. 
  15. We have made a further order for the landlord to send a written update to the resident, and all other households in the block, to include:
    1. The name and contact details for the single point of contact.
    2. An explanation of the reason for the delay and what action it is taking to resolve this issue.
    3. An estimated timescale for when the lift will be repaired and back in working order.
    4. How regularly it will send updates going forward (suggested 2 to 4 weekly) and any other actions it will take to keep residents updated, for example, notices in communal areas.
  16. As part of both complaints, the resident asked why he was continuing to be charged the same amount of service charge when the lift was regularly not working. We cannot assess the reasonableness of a charge and/or whether a refund is due, as this is for the First Tier Tribunal to consider. However, we have assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about the service charge.
  17. There is no evidence the landlord responded adequately. While it referred to the service charge in the first stage 1 and 2 responses, this did not include a response to his specific query. It only provided general information and suggestions that he contact the service charge team. This was disappointing for him.
  18. Despite the resident querying this again as part of the second complaint, the landlord failed to address it in either the stage 1 or 2 responses. This failure amounts to maladministration and has left the resident believing he is being unfairly charged for a service he is not receiving. We have made an order for the landlord to send a written response to him with an answer to his query and confirm what, if any, impact the repeated lift issues have had/will have on the service charge. 
  19. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this issue. It apologised and offered a total of £375 compensation as part of its responses to the 2 complaints. While positive the landlord offered redress for failures identified, the substantive issue remains outstanding and the repeated communication failures indicate it did not properly take on learning. This has meant the resident has been inconvenienced for a prolonged period of over 2 years, that is ongoing to date; with little or no updates on what is happening. This is concerning considering there have been 2 formal complaints raised. This means the landlord has missed multiple opportunities to put things right and learn from outcomes.
  20. Considering the full circumstances of the case, and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the redress offered by the landlord was insufficient. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We have made orders for a senior member of landlord staff (director level or above) to apologise to the resident and for it to pay him £700 compensation, inclusive of the £375 already offered, if not done so already. This is at the higher end of the compensation bracket for maladministration due to the significant period of time this matter has been ongoing, the repeated communication failures by the landlord and impact of this on the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord responded to the first stage 1 complaint in 3 working days. This was in line with the 10 working day committed response time set out in its complaints policy at the time.
  2. The resident replied the next day and said the response was “unacceptable”. As this was an expression of dissatisfaction with the response, the landlord should have treated this as an escalation request. However, it did not and it was only after 2 further contacts from the resident in August and September 2023, and contact from us on 26 September 2023, that it escalated the complaint. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling ignored.
  3. The landlord responded to the first stage 2 complaint on 1 November 2023. This was 55 working days after the initial expression of dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response, sent on 15 August 2023. This was more than double the 20 working day committed response time for stage 2 complaints, set out in its complaints policy at the time. This amounts to maladministration.
  4. The landlord responded to the second stage 1 complaint in 15 working days. This was slightly over the 10 working day committed response time set out in its complaints policy at the time, and so a minor delay.
  5. When the resident asked to escalate his second complaint to stage 2, on 23 July 2023, the landlord responded 6 days later and offered an additional £75 compensation to resolve this at stage 1. It is not clear how the landlord concluded that further compensation was required, as it did not complete a review of the complaint.
  6. Therefore, this additional offer was made to try and stop the resident from escalating the complaint, rather than as genuine redress for identified failure. This is poor complaint handling that amounts to maladministration. This made the resident feel the landlord wanted to make him go away, rather than resolve the issue. This is supported by the fact that it did not offer increased compensation at stage 2.
  7. The landlord sent the second stage 2 response 50 working days after the resident’s initial request to escalate the complaint. This was significantly over the 20 working day committed response time, set out in its complaints policy at the time. This amounts to maladministration.
  8. During this period of delay the resident chased the landlord at least 5 times, which meant he incurred time and trouble to get an answer to his complaint. Despite chasing the landlord, there is no evidence it replied or provided any updated deadline for it to respond. This amounts to maladministration and was frustrating for the resident.
  9. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord acknowledged this and apologised as part of some of its responses to the first and second complaints. While it offered £150 compensation for its handling of the first complaint, it did not offer any other redress for its handling of the second complaint.
  10. Considering the multiple delays, lack of updates and time and trouble incurred by the resident, the total redress offered by the landlord was insufficient. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and a finding of maladministration is appropriate. In consultation with our remedies guidance, we have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation (inclusive of the £150 already offered, if not done so already). This is for its handling of both complaints.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Lift repairs.
    2. The associated formal complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Sent a written response to the resident with an answer to his service charge query and confirming what, if any, impact the repeated lift issues have had/will have on the service charge. 
    2. Identified a member of staff (management level or above) to manage and progress the lift works and be the single point of contact for residents. 
    3. Sent a written update to the resident and all other households in the block. This should include:
      1. The name and contact details for the single point of contact.
      2. An explanation of the reason for the delay and what action it is taking to resolve this issue.
      3. An estimated timescale of when the lift will be repaired and back in working order.
      4. How regularly it will send updates going forward (suggested 2-4 weekly) and any other actions it will take to keep residents updated, for example, notices in communal areas.
    4. Apologised to the resident for its handling of the lift repairs. The apology should be sent from a senior member of staff (director level or above).
    5. Paid the resident £1,000 compensation, made up of:
      1. £700 for its handling of lift repairs (inclusive of the £375 already offered, if not done so already)
      2. £300 for its complaint handling (inclusive of the £150 already offered, if not done so already).

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to review how it records attendance for emergency works orders to ensure it can clearly evidence compliance with the committed timescale set out in its repairs policy. The landlord to provide an update on its intentions regarding this within 4 weeks.