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

Peabody Trust (202325455)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325455

Peabody Trust

20 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 resident’s complaint is about:
    1. The level of rent for the property.
    2. The landlord giving him a new tenancy agreement when he transferred to the property.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident and his wife are assured tenants of the landlord. They have 2 children. In November 2022, the landlord agreed to permanently transfer the family from their property due to its condition.
  2. On 19 January 2023, the landlord invited the resident to view a 3 bedroom maisonette within a large block (hereafter referred to as ‘the property’). It told him the monthly rent, including service charge, was £616.65. The resident and his wife viewed the property on 20 January 2023, however there were significant repairs which needed completing before they could move in.
  3. On or around 16 June 2023, the resident and his wife viewed the property again as the landlord had completed repairs. The landlord emailed them confirming their “provisional acceptance” of the property. It advised that the monthly rent was now £711.64.
  4. The resident and his wife signed the tenancy agreement for the property on 22 June 2023. The agreement listed the monthly rent as £711.64. Their tenancy began on 26 June 2023.
  5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 27 June 2023. He complained that he had been a tenant of the landlord for many years, but “was forced to register like a new tenant, which has wiped away my old contract”. He said that as the block he had moved into was not a new build, the landlord should reinstate his previous tenancy. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction with the increase in rent for the property since his first viewing in January 2023. He said he had family and friends living in the same block as him and none of them paid more than £660 per month. He asked the landlord to reassess the rent for the property.
  6. In an email of 2 July 2023, the resident accused the landlord of attempting to recoup the costs of the repairs carried out to the property through the rent increase.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 July 2023. It said that:
    1. The resident and his wife had signed a new assured tenancy for the property. This was the same type as they had held at their previous property.
    2. It increased its rents yearly in April. An increase had been applied between the resident first viewing the property in January 2023 and it becoming ready to let in June 2023.
    3. This increase was unrelated to any repairs it had completed.
    4. It was unable to discuss the rents paid by other residents but could confirm that “the rent at your block is the average paid by all tenants”.
  8. The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 14 August 2023. He maintained that the level of rent was unreasonable and said that no other resident in the block had experienced such a large rent increase.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 22 September 2023. It said that:
    1. It was unable to reinstate the resident’s old tenancy agreement, as it had been terminated. A tenancy agreement was tied to a specific property, and it needed to sign a new one each time a property was let.
    2. It had informed the resident of the rent increase prior to him and his wife signing the tenancy agreement.
    3. It set its rents in accordance with statutory and regulatory standards as well as contractual conditions.
    4. It provided a wide range of tenancy types. The terms of these, and the rent amounts associated with them, varied. This was influenced by “factors such as the start date of the tenancy and the prevailing rent policy in effect during that particular period.”
    5. It was offering the resident £100 compensation for the delays in its complaints process and the time, trouble and inconvenience these had caused.
  10. The resident referred his complaint to us on 27 September 2023. He expressed continued dissatisfaction with the level of rent for the property.

Assessment and findings

Level of rent

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint about the level of rent is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. Paragraph 42.d of the Scheme states that we may not investigate complaints which “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”. This is because these are matters which are best determined by the First Tier Tribunal. This is reflected in the landlord’s rent setting policy which says that “Tenants and leaseholders can also appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Division) if they feel that we are charging the wrong rent. The First Tier Tribunal has the power to change rents if they feel that don’t reflect market levels.
  3. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the level of rent the landlord is charging for the property, he may wish to seek legal advice regarding an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal.

New tenancy agreement

  1. The landlord’s ‘alternative accommodation (decants policy)’ says that “when a household moves permanently to a new home, they will sign a new tenancy agreement at the new home.” It says this will be the same type of tenancy as their existing tenancy agreement and retain all the rights and responsibilities of their previous tenancy.
  2. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord explained that “a tenancy agreement is a legally binding contract between landlord and tenant in relation to a specific property”. It said that “the tenancy is terminated once the tenant is transferred into a new home on a permanent basis, and we are obligated to create a new tenancy agreement each time a vacant property is relet.” This was appropriate and is a legal requirement.
  3. The landlord had confirmed in its stage 1 response that the resident’s new tenancy agreement was an assured tenancy, which was the same type as he held at his previous property. The tenancy agreement itself may have differed – the resident mentioned in his complaint that he previously held a legacy tenancy agreement signed prior to a merger the landlord completed in 2014. However, landlords are entitled to update their tenancy agreements over time and there is no evidence that the resident lost any rights or security of tenure because of this.
  4. The landlord’s records show that the resident and his wife signed the tenancy agreement electronically after receiving a copy via email. They therefore had sufficient opportunity to review the tenancy agreement and raise any concerns with the landlord at that time.
  5. In summary, the landlord issuing the resident with a new tenancy agreement was in keeping with its policy for internal transfers. It was not obliged to offer him an identical tenancy agreement to the one he held at his previous property, only one of the same type with no loss of rights. We make a finding of no maladministration based on this.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident made his complaint to the landlord on 27 June 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days “unless an extension is notified and agreed with the complainant”.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 July 2023. This was 19 working days after he made his complaint. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it agreed and extension with the resident as its policy requires. Nor did it acknowledge or apologise for the delayed response within the stage 1 response itself.
  3. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 14 August 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of a request to escalate. It says that “if we need more time, we will provide an explanation to the complainant containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 September 2023. It said that it needed more time to investigate his complaint and aimed to provide its response by 19 September 2023. Whilst this was in keeping with its policy, 24 working days had already passed since the resident escalated his complaint. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to notify him of the extension prior to the 20 working day deadline for its response expiring.
  5. The landlord failed to meet the extended deadline of 19 September 2023. It provided its stage 2 response 3 working days later, on 22 September 2023. There is no evidence the landlord notified the resident of this further delay.
  6. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays in handling the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 complaint response. It offered him £100 compensation for these. This amount is in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances of service failure, which is appropriate given the brief duration of the delays.
  7. In its stage 2 response, the landlord signposted the resident to us, as our complaint handling code requires. Given that the landlord’s rent setting policy establishes that concerns about the level of rent should be pursued via the FTT, it would have been appropriate for it to also signpost him there. Its failure to do so means that we make a finding of service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the level of rent for the property is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord giving the resident a new tenancy agreement.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation composed of:
    1. The £100 offered in its stage 2 complaint response for its complaint handling, if not already paid.
    2. A further £50 for the service failure in its complaint handling identified by this investigation.
  2. The landlord should provide us with evidence of its compliance with this order.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend that the landlord take steps to ensure complaint handling staff signpost residents to the FTT in responses to all complaints concerning the level of rent or service charges.