Peabody Trust (202321992)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321992

Peabody Trust

16 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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Its handling of her personal belongings while she was in alternative accommodation.
   2. Loss of room use.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2001. The property is a 4-bedroom maisonette. The resident’s children live with her. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident due to her physical health.
3. The resident appointed her son to act as her representative in dealing with the landlord and us. For the purposes of this report, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them, all communications from the resident and the representative are referred to as coming from the resident.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 15 May 2023 about damage to her son’s TV. It had been left in the property when the family were placed in temporary accommodation while the landlord carried out repairs. She said:
   1. They were told the belongings would be locked in a room with only the landlord and its contractors provided access.
   2. She believed a contractor had accidentally knocked the TV over when completing work in that room.
   3. She did not think the padlock had been used to secure the room throughout the period of repairs.
   4. The landlord was responsible for the damage as it was responsible for storing the belongings safely and securely during the repairs.
   5. She was claiming for room loss allowance as further work was being done on her bedroom (after her return to the property) and she was told to use another room for the next few days while the paint dried.
5. In its stage 1 response of 27 June 2023 the landlord said the resident had a legal disrepair case going through the pre-action protocol and the claim for damage should be added to this. It said it could not consider a complaint where legal action was being pursued but offered £50 for its late response.
6. The resident replied the same day and said the legal case was closed months ago after a settlement was reached, and this new claim was a separate matter. The landlord issued a second stage 1 response on 29 June 2023, saying:
   1. Its contractor was unaware of any damage caused to belongings.
   2. The resident had signed a disclaimer for items that it needed to move if she had not done this prior to leaving the property.
   3. There was no evidence the contractor had damaged the TV, only that they had been in the property. It could not say how or who caused the damage.
   4. The resident should make a contents insurance claim.
   5. Under its compensation policy it could offer 20% of weekly rent back after the first 48 hours of a room becoming uninhabitable, equating to £33.30.
   6. It would offer a further £50 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience experienced during the complaints process; a total offer of £133.30.
7. There followed further exchanges between the parties, with the complaint escalated to stage 2 on 2 August 2023. The resident said:
   1. The landlord consistently ignored the fact that, prior to reluctantly signing the disclaimer, she had requested the items be placed in storage per its policy and was ignored.
   2. The representative was pressured into signing the disclaimer and was additionally assured the belongings would be secured in a room with a padlock.
   3. Given that work was to be done in all the rooms, where had the landlord planned to safely store these belongings?
   4. She did not have contents insurance and so could not make a claim.
   5. She was also now claiming for an antique cabinet, carpet, and the bathroom wall damaged by the contractors, and cleaning costs following completion of the work.
8. The landlord explained to the resident that its stage 2 review could only consider the issues addressed in its stage 1 response. In its stage 2 response of 19 September 2023, it reiterated its previous stance and said:
   1. It was sorry for the length of time taken to resolve the complaint. It had provided feedback, increased staffing levels, and provided further training to ensure mistakes were not repeated.
   2. It had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, the length of time taken for the repairs, and its complaint handling failures and was increasing the compensation offer.
   3. Although it had established that no major work was carried out following the resident’s return to the property outside its 2-day timeframe, in consideration of her health, it would honour the offer for loss of room use.
   4. It offered a total of £533.30 (£100 for trouble and inconvenience, £150 for complaint handling, £33.30 for loss of room, and £250 as a gesture of goodwill to help with the cost of a new TV).
9. The resident remained unhappy and in October 2023 referred her complaint to us saying she had lost the use of her room for 2 days. She said she had explicitly asked the landlord to place their belongings in storage while the work was done. She wanted compensation totaling £7,155.80 for damage to personal belongings and compensation for the emotional distress, time, trouble and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

The handling of personal belongings

10. We do not ordinarily order the landlord to reimburse the resident for damage to belongings. It is not within our remit to establish if the resident was pressured into signing the disclaimer. Nor is it for us to establish when or how the belongings were damaged. It is also not within our remit to order reimbursement for the belongings of occupants who are not a tenant of the landlord.
11. The cost of damaged belongings arising from the landlord’s actions are more appropriately claimed via its insurance. Therefore, this is not addressed further in this report. Instead, we have considered whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures in its handling of the resident’s belongings. The resident may wish to consider seeking independent advice on making an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurer.
12. The landlord has accepted some of its poor service levels in its complaint responses. Therefore, the question before us is whether those failings amount to maladministration and, if so, whether appropriate redress was offered to put things right.
13. The landlord did not provide us with a copy of its Alternative Accommodation (Decants) Policy. ​The policy available on its website says temporary accommodation requires residents to either leave their belongings in the property or use external storage. In either case, the landlord has a responsibility to protect the items by securing the property or using reputable storage companies. Where items need to be stored away from the property, the landlord will arrange and pay for the removal and storage of the possessions, via one of its approved contractors, and arrange their return when the resident returns. 
14. The landlord’s policy details its position on personal belongings storage and security. However, there is no evidence that it considered, or explained to the resident, which provisions applied in this case.
15. At the complaint stage, the resident repeatedly drew the landlord’s attention to its policy. She provided evidence that removal and storage of personal belongings was requested prior to the decant but was not accommodated. However, it did not respond to this or explain why it opted to leave the items in the property, despite work being done in the room where they were stored (which is not refuted). 
16. The resident also said that the landlord promised to place a padlock on the room to limit access to personal belongings but had failed to lock the room. The landlord did not address or provide any comments on this point either. It should have explained whether the padlock was consistently in use and, if not, why it was not used to secure the room as promised.
17. Given the lack of evidence that the landlord followed its policy and procedures, we have found maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of its handling of her personal belongings. It has apologised and offered compensation for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures, the time taken to complete repairs, and a partial goodwill payment for a new TV. This was in line with our remedies guidance for the failings identified.
18. However, the landlord did not identify the failures highlighted above, meaning it has not offered redress for them. Therefore, an order is made for it to apologise for these failures and pay the resident an additional £250 for the trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused, in line with our remedies guidance.

Loss of room use

19. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will award 20% of the weekly rent for the loss of use of a bedroom after the first 48 hours. In this instance, there is no evidence that, after the resident’s return to the property, the landlord conducted work for longer than 48 hours causing the loss of use of a room. The resident has confirmed that she lost use of a room for approximately 2 days.
20. Despite the resident not qualifying for a loss of use payment under the landlord’s compensation policy, it offered her £33.30 (calculated at the above rate). As this is more than we would have awarded in the circumstances, a finding of no maladministration is made.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of her personal belongings.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the loss of room use.

Orders

22. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Written to the resident with an apology (with reference to our remedies guidance to ensure the apology is sincere and appropriate) for its failures in the handling of her report about her personal belongings.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any rent arrears) £250 compensation, in addition to the £533.30 previously offered.