Peabody Trust (202329607)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329607

Peabody Trust

11 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 response to the resident’s request to resolve an issue with the external communal lights.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the assessment.

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property. The resident’s tenancy started in 1999.
The property is a 3 bedroom flat.
On 25 January 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the external communal lights (the lights). In summary the resident said:
1. The lights stopped working following rain or “poor weather conditions”.
2. The problem was reoccurring despite the landlord completing repairs after each breakdown.
3. The landlord needed to carry out a full investigation to find out why poor weather was affecting the lights to enable a permanent fix to be undertaken. It was not reasonable for the landlord to complete responsive repairs only.
4. She had raised a complaint about the matter in the past.
On 24 February 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. In summary the landlord said:
1. The resident contacted it in April 2022 to raise a repair to the lights. The contractor attended on 20 May 2022 to replace a flood light. Following the repair all lights were tested and left in working order.
2. The resident contacted it in August 2022 due to a loss of electrics throughout the building, which included the lights. The contractor attended on 26 August 2022 to reinstate the power with the fault being traced to the lift.
3. Further intermittent faults were attended to in October 2022, December 2022 and January 2023. The contractor attended each incident to complete repairs and carry out testing.
4. On 17 January 2023 the contractor inspected the lights and recommended a follow up visit with a cherry picker to access the high level lights. This was completed on 8 February 2023. The contractor found that the cover to the high level connection box was missing causing water ingress into the electrics which tripped the lights. The cover was replaced.
5. The resident had not reported any further issues since the repair on 8 February 2023.
6. It was sorry for the time taken to identify the fault causing the lights to fail and the inconvenience the resident will have experienced as a result.
7. It would like to offer the resident £50 compensation for the delays in resolving the problem.
On 27 February 2023 the resident requested to escalate the complaint as she was “not happy with the response given”. In summary the resident said:
1. The problem with the lights had been reoccurring for more than 2 years.
2. She had personally reported the issue to the landlord “well over 15 times”.
3. When the lights failed it was a health and safety issue.
4. She had in the past requested that the landlord carry out an inspection to identify the cause of the lights repeatedly failing, however it had not done so. This was unsatisfactory. The landlord must do it now in order to provide a permanent solution. The investigation should take into account the history of the problem.
5. The compensation offered was “not sufficient” as the issue had caused “more than a minor disruption”.
On 7 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report that the lights had failed following “light snow and rain” the previous evening. Within her communication the resident reiterated that the landlord must carry out a full investigation to ensure that the lights did not continue to repeatedly fail.
On 8 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that she had contacted the repair team directly to report that the lights had failed.
On 16 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord setting out that it was unsatisfactory that it had not responded to her escalation request. She confirmed that the repair to fix the lights was outstanding since 8 March 2023 . She informed the landlord that she would bring the complaint to the Ombudsman if it did not provide a response by 24 March 2023 setting out how the matter would be resolved.
On 20 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that the repair to fix the lights was still outstanding. She noted that the repair was likely to be “a temporary fix once again” which was unacceptable. She repeated her request for “a thorough investigation” to avoid the lights failing again.
On 23 March 2023 the landlord responded to the resident. The Ombudsman cannot see that this response was given under the landlord’s complaint procedure. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in replying to the resident.
2. While it appreciated that the resident had reported that the problem with the lights had been ongoing for several years it was only able to “investigate concerns that [had] occurred in the last 6 months” under its complaint procedure.
3. It had reviewed its complaint records and could not see that the resident had raised a previous complaint about the lights.
4. As explained in its stage 1 response the contractor had identified during the “most recent appointments” that the “high level connection box” was broken which allowed water into the electrics causing the lights to trip. The contractor had sourced a cherry picker to access the connection box to enable a repair to be completed.
5. It was sorry that despite the repair to the connection box the lights had failed again. It understood that the contractor attended to repair the lights on 20 March 2023.
6. On 22 March 2023 the contractor had attended to complete a “thorough inspection” due to the lights repeatedly presenting faults or not working. The report following the inspection confirmed that all lights were working. It had contracted the contractor “today” to ask whether any further works or inspections were required.
7. It did not usually award compensation in respect of communal repairs. It would however like to award £150 compensation to the resident for inconvenience caused in raising repairs when the lights failed.
On the same day the resident replied confirming that she would like to accept the landlord’s offer of compensation.
On 13 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that she had not received the compensation payment and to request an update. Within her communication the resident noted that she had spoken to the contractor who had identified a problem with the “external lamp post” which was continuing to cause issues with the lights. She confirmed that the lamp post had been disconnected and as a result the carpark was in darkness after daylight hours.
On 20 April 2023 the landlord responded to apologise for the delay in processing the resident’s compensation. It confirmed that it should be received by the resident by the “middle of next week”. It also confirmed that it was waiting for an update from the contractor regarding the fault to the lamp post.
On 23 May 2023 the resident requested to escalate the complaint as the repair to the lamp post had not been completed.
On 9 June 2023 the resident resubmitted her escalation request as she had not received a response from the landlord.
On 19 June 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and confirmed that a response would be provided within 15 working days.
On 12 July 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2, final, response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It acknowledged that there had been delays in its complaint handling and in resolving the lighting issue. It also acknowledged that its communication could have been better. It therefore apologised.
2. The contractor had reattended following the lights failing in March 2023. During the attendance it identified a fault which caused the circuit to trip. Additional works were required to the lamp post to resolve this. It had requested that the contractor expedite the works. The contractor would issue a certificate on completion to show that the issue had been fully resolved. It would monitor the works to completion and it would contact the resident if any issues arose.
3. The issue with the lights should have been escalated internally so that a clear action plan to resolve the problem was established at an earlier time.
4. It had reviewed the resident’s concerns regarding its response to remedy ongoing faults with the lights from April 2022. It was unable to review historic issues under its complaint procedure, however it was sorry for the “issues [she had] experienced in the past”.
5. There had been delays in determining the root cause of the lighting issue, registering and escalating the complaint and issuing complaint responses. It therefore apologised and revised its total offer of compensation to £300 comprising:
  1. £25 for delays in responding to the complaint at stage 1.
  2. £100 for delays in escalating the complaint and responding at stage 2.
  3. £25 for not confirming the stage 2 response deadline within its stage 2 acknowledgement.
  4. £150 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
On 13 July 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to confirm that she accepted its offer of compensation. She also asked that the landlord keep her informed of the repair to the lamp post.
On 14 August 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to confirm that the repair to the lamp post was completed “last week”. She also asked the landlord to confirm when she would receive the compensation payment.
On 1 September 2023 the resident chased the landlord to advise that she was yet to receive the compensation payment.
On 16 September 2023 the resident made a new complaint, complaint X, to the landlord. She said that it was unsatisfactory that she had not yet received the compensation payment awarded at stage 2 despite several chasers to the landlord.
On 5 October 2023 the landlord responded to complaint X outside of its complaint procedure. In summary it said:
1. There had been an “error” which meant that the compensation payment had not been processed. It was sorry for the delays.
2. It had requested that the payment be expedited “if possible”.
3. It would contact the resident again to “offer an additional remedy for these delays” once the original payment had been made.
On 10 October 2023 the resident asked to escalate complaint X as the compensation payment was still outstanding.
On the same day the landlord responded. It explained that despite a request being made to process the compensation this had not happened. It apologised confirming that the resident should receive the payment by 13 October 2023. It explained that the complaint about the lighting was reviewed at stage 2 which was the final stage. It confirmed that it would however like to offer an additional £30 compensation in recognition of the delay in processing the compensation payment awarded. The resident replied confirming that she did not think the additional compensation was reasonable to the length of the delay.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to resolve an issue with the external communal lights

The tenancy agreement for the property sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the common parts and communal areas where the property is situated. The landlord’s repair policy confirms this repair responsibility. On notification of a report of an issue with the lights from the resident, or other residents, the landlord was required to investigate and to resolve any issues identified.
The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records dating back to January 2020 to demonstrate its response to resolve the issue with the lights. The records show that between January 2020 and 25 January 2023, the date of the resident’s complaint, the landlord raised many work orders to carry out repairs in response to reports of the lights not working. This Service can see that a large number of the reports were made by the resident.
The records show that throughout the period January 2020 and January 2023 the landlord responded to each report by attending and carrying out a repair to leave the lights in working order. For example on 16 December 2020 and 11 May 2021 the landlord completed same day repairs to restore the lights following reports that they were not working. And on 20 May 2022 the landlord completed a follow up repair from 7 April 2022 to replace a faulty flood light. This was appropriate. This Service has not identified any significant or protracted timescales by the landlord in attending to individual reports.
However, given that lights were failing on a regular basis, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have undertaken a comprehensive investigation of the lighting system, in addition to completing responsive repairs. There is no evidence that it did so during the period January 2020 to January 2023. This would have allowed the landlord to have identified if there was an underlying problem which was causing the lights to repeatedly fail and to then raise the necessary works to resolve the problem permanently. It is unsatisfactory that the landlord did not do so. It was also a missed opportunity to enable a permanent repair at a much earlier time.
The evidence shows that following the resident’s complaint and in spring 2023 the landlord took steps to arrange for a more comprehensive investigation into the lighting system by the contractor. While this was appropriate it is unsatisfactory that this action was only completed following the resident’s complaint and further faults with the lights.
The contractor’s record of the inspection undertaken on 29 April 2023 confirmed that it had “found the fault” which was causing the lights to fail – the lamp post. Despite the contractor recommending additional works to repair the lamp post this work was not completed until 9 August 2023. This was a period of approximately 4 months. This is a significantly protracted period of time and is unsatisfactory. This Service has not identified any explanation for the delay within the records for review and we consider that the repair could have been completed much sooner.
In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that its handling of the works to resolve the issue with the lights had been unsatisfactory including that it delayed in arranging a detailed inspection into the issue. The landlord therefore apologised and awarded the resident £150 compensation for the “time, trouble and inconvenience” she had experienced as a result.
The landlord’s apology was appropriate to demonstrate that it recognised that the service it had provided the resident had fallen below what was expected and therefore that she had been impacted.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that compensation may be awarded where its service delivery has fallen short. As the landlord had identified a service failure it was reasonable that the landlord engaged its compensation policy. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the circumstances of this part of the complaint to recognise the impact on the resident, including time, trouble and inconvenience. The award was also within an appropriate range for cases where there was a service failure which has adversely affected a resident.
While the time taken to address the resolve the issue with the lights was protracted, the landlord has since identified and acknowledged its service failures, apologised and offered appropriate compensation in recognition of this. The landlord has therefore offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this part of the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord provided its stage 1 response 23 working days after the resident made her complaint. This was outside of the landlord’s 10 working day service standard. The landlord acknowledged its failing within its stage 2 response and awarded the resident £25 compensation. This was appropriate in recognition of the delay.
The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 27 February 2023. Despite the resident’s request the landlord did not provide a formal response under its complaint procedure at that time. This is contrary to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which sets out that a complaint must be progressed to stage 2 where it is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1. While the landlord did provide an informal response on 23 March 2023, which did address the concerns raised by the resident, the response was not sufficient in place of a formal response including as it did not set out the resident’s right of referral to this Service.
The resident requested to escalate the complaint again on 23 May 2023. The landlord responded on 12 July 2023 following a chaser from the resident on 9 June 2023. This was a period of approximately 36 working days. This is significantly outside of the landlord’s 20 working day service standard. This is unsatisfactory and will have resulted in uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident while the response was outstanding.
In responding to the complaint at stage 2 the landlord recognised that its handling of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint had not been satisfactory and therefore awarded a total of £125 compensation. This was appropriate in recognition of the time and trouble the resident will have experienced in pursuing the complaint to stage 2.
As part of her complaint the resident said that the landlord had failed to respond to an earlier complaint about the lights. In responding to the complaint the landlord set out that it had no record of an earlier complaint. As part of the evidence for review this Service has identified a complaint dated 4 November 2022. The resident complained that the landlord had failed to fix the lights which had failed “at least 10 times”. It is unacceptable that the landlord did not respond to this complaint and therefore that the resident was required to raise a second complaint in January 2023. The purpose of a formal complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest stage. It was therefore a missed opportunity by the landlord to ensure that it took steps to put things right as soon as possible.
The evidence shows that following the end of the complaint procedure the landlord significantly delayed in processing the compensation it had awarded by a period of approximately 3 months. This is unsatisfactory, including as the compensation was the remedy to make good the issues arising from the complaint. In recognition of the delay the landlord offered an additional £30 compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the offer was reasonable as the error did not have a significant or lasting impact on the resident.
There was service failure by the landlord as it did not respond to the resident’s complaint dated 4 November 2022 about the lights. The landlord did not identify this failing in its own complaint investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of its response to her request to resolve an issue with the external communal lights which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this part of the complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident a total of £430 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. This figure comprises the £330 which the landlord offered itself in consideration of the complaint, if it has not already been paid, in addition to an extra £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by it not responding to the resident’s complaint dated 4 November 2022.