Peabody Trust (202332296)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332296

Peabody Trust

17 June 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 handling of:
1. Planned maintenance of communal areas.
2. Access to, and maintenance of, a communal bike storage.
3. Requests for window cleaning.
4. Requests to install a video intercom.
5. Service charge enquiries.
6. Repairs to a communal lift.
7. Reports about car parking issues.
8. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder and the landlord is the freeholder. The property is a 2 bedroom 4th floor flat in a medium rise block (the block). The resident has lived at the property with her partner since January 2022.
The resident complained to the landlord on 30 January 2023. She said that she was unhappy with the service provided by it. She listed the following issues:
1. The communal carpets were unkempt, there was damp and mould on the communal walls, and the plaster was falling in places.
2. The landlord had not responded to her calls.
3. There were old, rusted bikes in the communal bike storage, leaving no room for her partner to store his bike.
4. She had no access to the back door of the block. She wanted keys or the landlord to change the lock.
5. She wanted the landlord to improve the security in the block after bikes and other items had been stolen or damaged.
6. The communal lift broke down frequently. She asked if the landlord could service or replace it.
7. She disagreed with the amount of service charge quoted for the window cleaning.
The landlord acknowledged her complaint the same day. It issued its stage 1 response on 7 March 2023. It said:
1. It was considering when it could add the communal decoration to its planned maintenance schedule. It would update her with an answer post complaint.
2. It began the process of removing abandoned bikes from the communal storage. It wrote to all residents in the block and labelled each of the bikes.
3. It began consultation for installing a video intercom system to improve security. The installation would introduce additional service charges and costs for the leaseholders.
4. Its engineers were investigating the reported lift breakdowns.
5. It passed her service charge enquiries to the relevant team for a response.
6. It apologised for any incorrect information given about the communal window cleaning. It would confirm whether the window cleaning extended beyond the communal windows and respond separately.
7. It apologised for the time taken to respond to her complaint. It said that it had to gather information from many departments and would continue to update the resident after the complaint response.
The landlord’s records show that between March and April 2023, it painted the communal areas. It contacted residents and served TORT notices on abandoned bikes in the communal storage. Its lift contractor inspected the lift.
The resident sought to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 13 April 2023. The landlord called her to discuss the request the same day. The resident broadly reiterated her complaints. She also said some of the paint had bubbled or chipped away on the communal walls. She was concerned that the walls were damp. The landlord agreed to provide her with a fortnightly update while it continued its investigations.
The landlord provided an update to the resident on 28 April 2023, when she raised the misuse of the communal car park. It agreed to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord conducted repairs to the lift in April, May, and June 2023. It recorded attempts to update the resident by phone in June and July 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 July 2023. It said:
1. It had added the communal decoration to its planned maintenance schedule for that financial year. It planned to commence the works between October and December 2023.
2. After removing abandoned bikes from the communal storage, it had monitored the site and there was space for new bikes. It had not cleaned the area for more than 12 months, and this was not on its cleaning schedule. It cleaned the area and added the area to a cleaning schedule. It would pay £75, distributed amongst the residents in the block, to reflect the lack of cleaning.
3. It gave the resident new keys for the back door in June 2023.
4. It had continued consulting residents on plans to install a video intercom to improve security. Its second stage consultation would end on 23 July 2023.
5. There were no underlying faults identified with the lift in its annual service. However, after receiving the complaint, its contractor replaced the lift motor and added it for further monitoring.
6. It had responded to the resident’s request for service charge receipts separately.
7. It confirmed that its window cleaners cleaned the communal windows only. Residents were responsible for their own windows. The fee for communal window cleaning was £16 per year.
8. It had passed issues relating to the misuse of the communal car park to its parking enforcement contractor for monitoring.
9. It apologised for the delay in its response and offered her £75 compensation. It said that it had been in regular contact with the resident when responding at stage 2. It decided that a coordinated approach was necessary to ensure that it responded to each of her complaint points.
In December 2023, the landlord told the resident that it would install the video intercom in February 2024.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2024. She wanted the landlord to improve its communication with residents, install the video intercom, redecorate the communal areas, and pay increased compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The records show related events have occurred since the resident’s complaint concluded the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that we may not investigate complaints that have not exhausted a landlord’s internal complaint procedure. However, we will consider events after the final complaint response where they directly relate to the matters we are investigating. In this case, it was necessary to establish whether it followed through with the commitments set out in its complaint responses and put things right.

Planned maintenance of communal areas

In accordance with the terms of the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the common parts of the property. This includes the lifts, hallways, entrances, landing, and staircases.
It is common practice in the sector to conduct planned maintenance in annual programmes. This allows landlords to tender contracts and provide cost-effective services for residents. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to include the redecoration of the communal areas as part of its cyclical maintenance policy.
In her complaint to the landlord in January 2023, the resident said the communal areas were in a poor condition. She said the landlord had previously agreed to redecorate the communal area inside the block in 2020/21. Although it did not address the resident’s complaint that the work should have started sooner, the landlord’s response was broadly reasonable.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the condition of the block. It agreed that it needed to redecorate the communal areas. It agreed to discuss the works and provide an update to the resident. Its records show that it followed through with this commitment. It discussed the proposed works internally and agreed to bring them forwards following the resident’s request. Its actions were reasonable and reflected the concerns raised by the resident.
In its stage 2 response in July 2023, the landlord told the resident that it added the works to its cyclical maintenance programme that year. This was positive news and further demonstrated the landlord’s intention to resolve the substantive issues for the resident. It said that it planned to commence the works between October and December 2023. Its approach to her concerns about planned maintenance was resolution focused. It was fair and showed an intention to put things right.
However, the landlord did not follow through with the commitments set out in its complaint response. It did not pursue the section 20 notices – required to complete the planned maintenance – through to completion in 2023. It did not provide any regular updates to the resident and she later pursued a further complaint about this matter in September 2024.
In September 2024, the landlord said that it would have to tender the contract again and expected the works to start in April 2025. The landlord’s records from June 2025 show that it is yet to complete the planned maintenance works in the communal areas. They show that it intends to add the work to this financial year’s tender, which would likely begin in “a couple of months”.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of planned maintenance of communal areas. Neither party has disputed that the communal areas need planned maintenance. Although it is reasonable to complete these works under cyclical maintenance programmes, the landlord should follow through with the commitments it makes. It has not started the communal maintenance works more than 18 months after it expected them to begin. It has not treated the resident fairly or acted reasonably in the circumstances.
It is evident that the landlord failed to approach the communal maintenance issues proactively. It did not provide the resident with regular updates and did not manage her expectations regarding the timescale to complete the works. The resident had to continue seeking updates from the landlord because of its poor communication in this matter. The landlord should pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This reflects the landlord’s failure to put things right in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.

Access to, and maintenance of, a communal bike storage

The landlord acknowledged that it was responsible for the maintenance/upkeep of the communal bike storage area. Its records show that it responded promptly to the resident’s concerns about the misuse of the communal bike storage in January 2023. It visited the site, then wrote to residents in March and April 2023. It served the appropriate TORT notices and removed bikes once it was reasonable to do so.
The landlord was also fair in its response to the resident at stage 1 and stage 2. It recognised that it had failed to conduct regular cleaning of the bike storage. Its decision to clean the area and add it to its schedule for regular maintenance was appropriate. Its credit note of £75 against the following year’s charges was reasonable in the circumstances and reflected the low impact its failure previously had on residents.
However, the landlord continued its failure to follow through with the commitments set out in its complaint response. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it would add the area to its pressure washing schedule. The resident told the Ombudsman that no cleaning has taken place since the initial jet washing in 2023. The landlord’s cleaning schedule from 2025 does not list the communal bike storage area at all. It is evident that the landlord failed to clean the area again following its stage 2 response.
The Ombudsman finds service failure by the landlord in its handling of access to, and maintenance of, a communal bike storage. Its response at stage 2 was fair. Its offer of a charges credit for the lack of cleaning to that point was reasonable. Its decision to jet wash the area showed that it was putting things right. However, it did not follow through with its commitments. If it had followed through with those commitments, we would have found reasonable redress by the landlord. Instead, it did not add the bike store to its regular cleaning schedule. It did not conduct any additional jet washes after 2023.
The landlord should agree a reasonable frequency to clean the bike store with the residents of the block and any additional costs this may incur. It should add the area to its cleaning task schedule and provide evidence to the Ombudsman and resident that it has. It should pay an additional £50 credit, distributed amongst the residents service charge accounts. This reflects the landlord’s own credit decision in 2023. This is comprised of £25 per year for the cleaning costs for the additional 2 years it failed to clean the area.

Requests for window cleaning

The lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance/upkeep of the communal areas. The resident is responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the glass in her own windows. There was no dispute between the parties about the responsibilities involved.
The Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of requests for window cleaning. The landlord was fair in its approach to the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses. Its decision not to clean windows other than those which are communal was reasonable. It appropriately explained why it would be unreasonable to add the resident’s windows to its cleaning schedule.

Requests to install a video intercom

The landlord’s section 20 notice policy states it must give leaseholders the opportunity to comment on any proposed works and related costs. It operates a 3-stage process to complete this consultation. Each stage usually takes place at 30-day intervals.
It is unclear from the landlord’s records when it started the section 20 consultation to improve the door entry system for the block. In her complaints to the landlord in January 2023, the resident said a neighbour opened the enquiry 6 months before. In her communication with the landlord in September 2023, she says the landlord began the section 20 consultation in around March 2023.
In its stage 1 response in March 2023, the landlord said that it had quotes to install a video intercom system. It said that it had begun the resident consultation. This was a reasonable response and showed the landlord had acted on the resident’s concerns.
In its stage 2 response in July 2023, the landlord said it was in the second stage of consultation, which was due to end on 23 July 2023. It was reasonable to describe the process and the landlord showed that it was pursuing the resident’s request in accordance with its policy and procedures. However, it should have agreed a plan to update residents on the consultation process and give a reasonable expectation when works could begin. It did not and this caused the resident additional time and trouble chasing the landlord post complaint.
It is reasonable to determine that the landlord could have started the third stage of consultation in August 2023. Had it done so, it could reasonably have expected to start works between November and December 2023. It could have managed the resident’s expectations more effectively had it explained this process in more detail in its complaint response. It did not and this was an oversight by the landlord.
Although there were some delays in the works following the stage 2 response, the landlord did install the intercom in February 2024. The landlord’s records show the resident pursued updates from the landlord in December 2023 and January 2024. This shows the landlord’s failure to be proactive and communicate effectively with the resident caused additional time and trouble.
The Ombudsman finds service failure by the landlord in its handling of requests to install a video intercom. The landlord’s complaint responses were broadly reasonable. It responded appropriately to the resident’s request for additional security. It sought quotes to install a video intercom, shared the details with the resident, and began the appropriate process to begin the works. However, it failed to provide regular updates or manage the resident’s expectations about the timescales involved. It was not proactive in its approach and relied on the resident to pursue the works. The landlord should pay the resident £50 for her time and trouble. This reflects the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies for a minor failure by the landlord.

Service charge enquiries

In her complaint to the landlord in February 2023, the resident said she received her service charge report late. She also asked for copies of the receipts covering the service charge and was unhappy with the landlord’s communication regarding the service charges.
The landlord acknowledged these requests in its stage 1 response in March 2023 and said it would arrange for the appropriate service to contact her separately. Given the complexities involved, it was not unreasonable to acknowledge the request and direct it to the appropriate service area. However, it did not fully address the resident’s complaints about the lack of communication or its response to her previous requests.
During a discussion with the resident in April 2023, the landlord offered to provide her with copies of all receipts at its office. This showed the landlord had followed through with its commitments and was seeking to resolve the resident’s substantive complaint. Its communication had improved and the resident agreed to visit the office and review the receipts. Its actions were reasonable and resolution focused.
In its stage 2 response in July 2023, the landlord said it would provide a breakdown of the service charges for the resident separately. It acknowledged that there was a communication failure as it had not recorded her previous requests for the information accurately. Its decision to process this request outside of its complaint process was reasonable given the amount of information that it needed to provide.
The records show the landlord provided copies of the invoices for 2021/22 to the resident on 18 September 2023. This was around 7 months after her initial request in February 2023. Although the delay was unreasonable, the landlord appropriately provided a full breakdown of the actual annual service charges for 2021-2022. It also included a spreadsheet detailing each individual transacted cost. The landlord followed through with the commitments set out in its complaint response, albeit with an unreasonable delay.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure by the landlord in its handling of service charge enquiries. It appropriately acknowledged the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses and shared them with the relevant service area. The information involved was complex so the landlord’s decision not to provide the breakdown in its complaint response was fair.
However, the landlord lacked proper oversight of the resident’s request. It took around 7 months to provide a breakdown of her service charges. This is an unreasonable timeframe to provide information that it should already hold and share annually. It acknowledged some of its communication failures in its stage 2 response but did not put things right in the circumstances.
The landlord should pay the resident £50 for her time and trouble pursuing this information. This reflects the landlord’s minor failure that it did not fully put right.

Repairs to a communal lift

In her reports to the landlord on 1 February 2023, the resident said the lift broke down 3 times within a week. There were no records available to the Ombudsman showing that there were frequent callouts prior to, or following, her reports. Therefore, there was no evidence that the lift failures caused the resident significant detriment.
It is clear from the landlord’s records that it took the resident’s reports seriously. In its stage 1 response on 7 March 2023, the landlord appropriately agreed to conduct further investigation into the cause of the breakdowns. It followed through with these commitments and its records show that it arranged for specialist contractors to inspect the lift in March 2023. Between April and May 2023, it identified an underlying fault with the lift door and motor. Its notes show that it had resolved all repairs by 2 June 2023.
Although it took around 4 months to complete all repairs, the landlord’s actions were reasonable. The nature of the lift breakdowns was not apparent in its annual service, so its decision to appoint a specialist contractor to investigate was appropriate. Lift repairs can be complex and often require made to order parts. In this case, the landlord responded within a reasonable timeframe, took the reports seriously, and acted accordingly to resolve the underlying fault.
The landlord appropriately apologised for the inconvenience caused by the multiple call outs in its stage 2 response. It accurately described the actions taken to identify and put right the repairs which caused the breakdowns. Its decision to add the block for additional monitoring was fair.
The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal lift. It responded within a reasonable period to the resident’s initial report. It took the reports seriously and promptly appointed a suitably qualified contractor to inspect the lift. Once it was aware of an underlying fault, it took the appropriate action to replace damaged parts. Its repair records show that it left the lift in service following each visit. There was no evidence to show the landlord left the lift out of service for a prolonged period during the timeline.

Reports about car parking issues

The resident first raised issues with the misuse of the car park in her request to escalate her complaint on 2 May 2023. The landlord responded to the report immediately. It agreed to pass her concerns onto its parking enforcement agency and update her. Its actions were prompt and proportionate.
The landlord’s records show it unsuccessfully tried updating the resident by phone 3 times between June and July 2023. This indicates that it was taking her report seriously. It also wrote to residents and highlighted the misuse of the car park (which the resident later said was effective).
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it passed the issues with unauthorised parking to its enforcement agency for monitoring. It followed through with this promise. However, it later determined that, as it was responsible for only 2 bays at the site, it was not commercially viable to provide regular patrols.
The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about car parking issues. Although ultimately it was unable to send its parking enforcement agency, it responded to the resident’s reports fairly and quickly. It took reasonable steps to inform other residents about the appropriate car parking arrangements and sought to update the resident by phone as agreed.

The associated complaint

It is important for the landlord to maintain the commitments set out in its policies and procedures. Its complaint handling policy states that it will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days and its stage 2 response within 20 working days. In this case, the landlord did not provide either its stage 1 or 2 response within its prescribed timescales.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 March 2023. This was around 26 working days after the resident made her complaint on 30 January 2023. It appropriately apologised and said that it had taken additional time to gather information across departments. It is reasonable to delay a complaint response where there are additional complexities. However, the landlord should have informed her of the delay and need to extend the response timescale. It did not and this was a failing.
There were additional delays in the landlord’s stage 2 response. The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 1 April 2023. The landlord responded on 10 July 2023, which was around 66 working days later. This is considerably above the 20 working days timescale set out in its complaint handling policy.
The landlord’s records show that it maintained communication with the resident while it was investigating the complaint at stage 2. It spoke to her on 13 April 2023 and agreed that an extension would be necessary. It recorded that the parties agreed with the extension and that it would provide fortnightly catch ups until it could issue its response. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. There were many aspects to the complaint and the landlord required additional time to put things right for the resident.
The landlord either called, or attempted calls, regularly between April and July 2023. It then thanked the resident for her patience and understanding in its stage 2 response. It appropriately accepted that it had taken longer than the timescales in its policy to respond. Its offer of £75 for its complaint handling failures was reasonable and reflected the overall detriment caused.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress that satisfactorily resolves its handling of the associated complaint. Although there were delays throughout its complaint handling, the landlord was proactive in its communication with the resident. It took reasonable steps to fully resolve the complaint at stage 2. It reflected on its complaint handling failures and its offer of £75 was reasonable.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of planned maintenance of communal areas.
2. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of access to, and maintenance of, a communal bike storage.
3. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of requests for window cleaning.
4. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of requests to install a video intercom.
5. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of service charge enquiries.
6. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to a communal lift.
7. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports about car parking issues.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress made by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £350 compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of planned maintenance of communal areas.
  2. £50 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its handling of access to, and maintenance of, a communal bike storage.
  3. £50 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of requests to install a video intercom.
  4. £50 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of service charge enquiries.
3. Pay £50 as credit distributed evenly across the residents service charge accounts for the block for its failure to maintain the communal bike storage.
4. Provide the resident and Ombudsman a clear timeline to complete the planned maintenance works. This should include an action plan which details when it will begin any additional consultation and the works involved.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Review how it manages section 20 consultation and planned maintenance schedules. It should consider how it can improve communication to its residents and how it monitors any consultation it has started.
2. Agree a reasonable frequency to clean the bike store with the residents of the block and any additional costs this may incur. It should add the area to its cleaning task schedule and provide evidence to the resident and Ombudsman that it has done so.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should re-offer the £75 compensation awarded for its complaint handling failures (if it has not already paid the resident). The Ombudsman has made a reasonable redress decision on the basis that this amount is paid to her.