Peabody Trust (202333638)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333638

Peabody Trust

19 May 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:
   1. Reports of repairs to the lift and associated service charges.
   2. Reports of repairs to the intercom system and associated service charges.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has been the shared owner of the flat since 2015. The building is owned and managed by the landlord.
4. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 June 2023 concerned about the actual service charge costs for 2021–2022 she had received. The landlord confirmed the resident had paid the estimated amount, but when the actual costs had been calculated there was a deficit which the resident had to pay. The landlord provided a breakdown of the actual costs to the resident on 9 June 2023 as requested.
5. On 8 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to dispute a letter she had received regarding outstanding payments. She said the lift broke down regularly, and her intercom system had not worked since the upgrade therefore she should not be charged. The resident asked for the service charges to be removed. The landlord confirmed it had reviewed its records and said there had not been an unusual number of call outs for the lift. It explained the intercom system had been upgraded in 2021, after an increase in repairs the previous year. The landlord confirmed it could not refund the service charges.
6. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 17 September 2023. She was unhappy with the service charges for the lift repairs and the intercom system and asked for these to be removed from her final bill.
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint on 21 September 2023 in which it:
   1. advised it had contacted the defect team for any referrals for the lift and reviewed the charges for the lift service for 2021-2022
   2. apologised for any inconvenience caused when the lifts failed but advised the faults were in line with its usage therefore the costs were fair and reasonable and there was nothing to warrant a refund
   3. advised the contract team were responding to a query from another resident regarding the charges and if a decision was made to refund the charges it would be applied to all flats
   4. explained that due to the increase in repairs to the intercom systems in the block an upgrade was necessary, therefore the costs were applied via service charges
   5. confirmed the matter of workmanship regarding the installation of the intercoms had not been reported within 12 months of the work being completed therefore the contractor could not investigate this
   6. gave the resident £50 as a gesture of goodwill for making good the area around the handset which she said had been left damaged by the contractor
   7. confirmed it had reported the fault on the resident’s intercom system
8. The resident escalated her complaint on 29 September 2023. She remained dissatisfied with:
   1. the costs for the lift repairs which she believed were due to poor workmanship at the time of the installation, therefore should be removed from her bill
   2. the intercom system which she said had not worked properly since the install, therefore the charges should be removed from her bill
9. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 23 October 2023. It said:
   1. it had reviewed and identified several lift breakdowns therefore agreed to remove the repair costs for the lift for 2021-2022
   2. the costs would be refunded as an adjustment to the resident’s service charge account
   3. it was unable to remove the costs for the intercom system for the reasons explained in its stage 1 complaint response
   4. any repairs should be reported via the email address or weblink provided, so they could be raised with the contractor
   5. it had identified learning for the service delivery team to report any adjustments to the account team so these could be made to accounts
   6. it offered £75 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience, and £50 for the delay in escalating the complaint
10. The resident referred her complaint to us on 29 November 2023. The resident confirmed the landlord had agreed to remove the costs for the lift, but she remained unhappy with the service charges for the intercom system.
11. As a resolution, the resident wanted the landlord to:
    1. remove the service charges for the intercom system
    2. pay more compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. As a resolution to the complaint the resident asked for the landlord to remove the service charges for the intercom system. In line with the Scheme, we are unable to consider whether service charges are reasonable when they have been applied in accordance with the lease. We can however focus on the landlord’s communication with the resident and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
13. Complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge are best suited for consideration by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), who can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable. The resident may wish to visit the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) website for advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint.

Reports of repairs to the lift and associated service charges

14. The lease agreement states:
    1. service charge costs will be discharged by the landlord for any outgoings assessed, charges imposed or payable on, or in respect of the whole of the building or in the whole or any part of the common parts
    2. in each service charge year, the tenant is to pay the service charge proportion of the service charge costs
15. The landlord’s repairs policy states the following:
    1. it is responsible for the ensuring for communal areas and repairs
    2. residents are to notify it of any repair that it is responsible for
16. Based on the evidence provided to us, there is no record of the resident reporting any issues with the lift prior to her disputing the 2021-2022 service charges. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord to assume the resident did not have any concerns about the service provided.
17. When the resident challenged the service charges as part of her complaint on 17 September 2023, it was reasonable for the landlord to make enquiries on any defects raised, review the number of call outs, and investigate the nature of repairs that had been completed. The landlord confirmed there had not been any defects recorded, and the breakdowns had been due to various issues including wear and tear and vandalism.
18. Further the landlord reviewed its end of year accounts and confirmed the costs had been fairly and reasonably applied, therefore based on its investigation at the time, the resident was responsible for a share of the repair costs. This was appropriate as it was in line with the lease agreement.
19. The resident remained dissatisfied, and the landlord took the opportunity to review its records as part of the complaint escalation. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed it had reviewed the records and identified there had been several breakdowns in 2021-2022. The landlord used its discretion and confirmed it would remove the repairs costs for the lift for that financial year and this would be refunded via an adjustment to the resident’s service charge account. The refund was processed in October 2023.
20. Furthermore, the landlord highlighted learning as part of its review. This included the service delivery team reviewing the costs against the breakdowns and notifying the property accounts team of any adjustments that were needed. The landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable. The landlord recognised the resident’s concerns, demonstrated a thorough investigation, and used its discretion when it decided to refund the costs of the repairs. As such we find no maladministration.

Reports of repairs to the intercom system and associated service charges.

21. Based on the evidence provided to us, there is no record of the resident reporting any issues with the intercom system prior to her disputing the 2021-2022 service charges. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord to assume the resident did not have any concerns about the service provided.
22. Prior to the resident’s complaint and within the complaint itself, she told the landlord her intercom system had worked well prior to the upgrade. However, since the upgrade she said it made an obscure ringing noise, the video did not work, and the contractor had left holes around the handset that she had to put right.
23. In its stage 1 complaint the landlord explained the intercom system was ‘common wired’ which meant if one handset broke, it affected all the handsets in the block. It confirmed the increase in reports in 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 resulted in an increase in service charges, therefore the upgrade was necessary. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain the decision process they had used to identify a replacement system was needed to the resident.
24. The landlord confirmed the issue regarding the workmanship had not been raised within 12 months of the work being completed therefore it could not report this to the contractor. While there is no evidence the resident reported any concerns with the workmanship after the installation, the landlord acknowledged the inconvenience of the resident having to make good the area around the handset. The landlord used its discretion on this matter and offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill in recognition of this. This was reasonable.
25. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision. She reiterated that her intercom did not need replacing, the new one did not work and that she had to fill the holes left by the contractor. She asked for the £241.39 service charge to be removed.
26. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed its decision and said it was unable to remove the charges for the reasons stated in its stage 1 complaint. This was reasonable. It asked the resident to report any repairs via the email address or weblink provided in the response letter so they could be raised to the contractor. The landlord increased its total offer of compensation to £75 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused. This was appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance where there has been minimal detriment on the resident. As such we find no maladministration.

Complaint handling

27. The landlord operated a 2-stage complaint policy. The policy states:
    1. it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5–working days of receipt and respond within 20-working days. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 3-working days of receipt and responded to within 20–working days of receipt
    2. service charges or rent increases set in line with its policy will not be investigated as a complaint
    3. it will not investigate a complaint if the issue giving rise to the complaint happened, or was first found, over six months ago
28. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords should:
    1. acknowledge, define, and log stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
    2. issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20-working days of a stage 2 complaint escalation request
29. Prior to the complaint, there is evidence of contact between the landlord and resident in relation to the service charge dispute. Although it was evident the resident believed she had raised a complaint, the landlord treated the query as a service request. This may have been appropriate and in line with its complaint policy, however there was no communication from the landlord to explain this to the resident. This was a communication failure by the landlord.
30. On 17 September 2023 the resident told the landlord she did not feel it had answered her complaint satisfactorily and asked for it to be escalated. The landlord did not acknowledge this with the resident or confirm it would be investigated under its complaint process. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
31. Notwithstanding, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 September 2023, 3 working days after the request from the resident. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy.
32. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 29 September 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 9 October 2023. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy or the Code.
33. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 23 October 2023. This was appropriate as it was in line with the policy and the Code. The landlord took the opportunity to review its complaint handling and recognised its delay in escalating the complaint. To put things right, the landlord offered £50 in compensation. This was an appropriate offer and in line with our remedies guidance for a service failure with minimal disruption for the resident. As such we find reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the lift and associated service charges.
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the intercom system and associated service charges.
36. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

37. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £75 that was offered in the final complaint response for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by having to make good the area around the handset.
38. The landlord should follow up on the repair to the resident’s intercom system.
39. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 that was offered in the final complaint response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis this compensation is paid.