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

Peabody Trust (202346852)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346852

Peabody Trust

25 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 handling of the resident’s request to be moved.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident has mental and physical vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 26 January 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord asking for a temporary move. The resident stated her circumstances and said she felt unsafe at home. The resident also said she was sleeping from house to house as she feared for her safety because gangs and other people in her life knew her address. She said she was vulnerable, and registered disabled.
  3. The resident then called the landlord on 7 March 2024 and asked to be temporarily moved. She told the landlord she had called the police because she saw a group of people in an area that noticed her. She said she overheard them saying they know where she lives. The landlord told her its staff’s role and who her case was assigned to. The landlord said it would look at whether a management move was required.
  4. The resident asked the landlord for updates on 8 and 11 March 2024. The landlord’s staff called the resident on 14 March 2024 but was unable to reach her. She emailed after the phone call on 14 March 2024 and then again on 18 March 2024, and 3 April 2024 wanting to speak to its staff and receive updates. On 8 April 2024 the landlord’s staff member discussed her request to be moved on the phone. It said it could not facilitate a temporary move because it did not have temporary accommodation. It also said it would consider a management move dependent on the resident providing additional information to support her circumstances.
  5. By 28 May 2024 the resident had provided the landlord with a letter from the police stating she had reported issues to them. The landlord rejected a management transfer for the resident on this date.
  6. The resident complained to the landlord on 7 July 2024 that she was refused a move, and she was not told why in writing. She quoted the Equality Act 2010 and Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 July 2024 and wrote to the resident on 23 July 2024 with its stage 1 complaint response which said:
    1. The reason for the refusal was because there was no evidence to support issues. The resident approached the local council and there was no evidence that she was at risk There were no ongoing police investigations, and there was no evidence after carrying out risk assessments, and assessing the evidence that anything was happening, or that anyone was approaching the resident.
    2. If the resident had new evidence, she could send it to the landlord. If she did not, she could still email it to appeal.
    3. The resident could use the link to a mutual exchange website and the landlord provided her contact with its staff member directly.
    4. The landlord apologised for the frustration and inconvenience caused. It said its customer service fell short due to delays on the landlord’s part. It offered compensation of £120 comprised of:
      1. £70.00 for its lack of communication.
      2. £50 for its delayed complaint response.
  7. On 30 July 2024 the resident escalated her complaint as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 31 July 2024 and sent its stage 2 complaint response on 28 August 2024. The landlord reiterated its findings from its stage 1 complaint response and said:
    1. That the landlord found no evidence it had discriminated against her. However, it was sorry that as a vulnerable disabled person, the resident was living in fear and sleeping on sofas, due to not wanting to stay at her property. It urged her to contact the police should she be at risk of harm, as this was a police matter.
    2. There was no evidence the resident was at risk.
    3. The quickest way for the resident to be moved was via mutual exchange.
    4. It was sorry that her complaint escalation was not acknowledged within 5 working days.
    5. That it was revising its compensation offer due to the resident’s vulnerabilities and its complaint handling to a total of £200, comprised of:
      1. £100 for distress and inconvenience for the disruption caused and delays in responding to the resident.
      2. £100 for the time and trouble expended by the resident in pursuing her complaint.
  8. On 12 December 2024 the resident confirmed she wanted us to investigate her complaint as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. In April 2025 the resident told us that she had moved from the property, but this was not because of the landlord’s actions.

Assessment and finding

Scope of investigation

  1. The scope of this investigation will consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint of being declined a management move by the landlord and not being provided the reasons. Any new issues that have happened since the resident exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure in August 2024 would need to be raised as a new complaint. This is because landlord’s need to be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to issues prior to our involvement.
  2. Similarly, the resident said issues had been ongoing since 2022. This investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent request from January 2024 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a reasonable period, which is 12 months. The landlord can then consider the issues while the evidence is available.
  3. In the resident’s complaint submission of July 2024, she said her health and wellbeing was affected. She quoted the Equality Act 2010 and said the landlord could not discriminate against disabilities. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. We are also unable to reach legal findings. Therefore, we cannot confirm the effect of the landlord’s actions or inaction on the resident’s health and the resident may wish to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint. Although we can consider the landlord’s handling of her vulnerabilities and its response to her concerns around discrimination.

Resident’s request to be moved

  1. The landlord’s rehousing policy sets out that it would consider a management transfer where the safety and wellbeing of the resident is at serious risk. A management transfer would give the resident priority for an urgent move to a property.
  2. The resident put the landlord on notice in her letter dated 26 January 2024 that she was looking for a temporary move. It was not until 7 March 2024 the landlord demonstrated that it was acting and allocated its staff member to the resident’s case. This meant 41-calendar days had passed since the resident wrote the letter. She had to call the landlord for it to take action, which was unreasonable.
  3. The evidence also shows the resident continued to chase the landlord on 5 separate occasions between 8 March 2024 and 3 April 2024 inclusive, due to a lack of contact by it. We acknowledge the landlord did call the resident once on 14 March 2024, but she was not contactable. However, this was a distressing time for the resident who was worried about her safety, and she experienced inconvenience by chasing the landlord.
  4. It was not until 8 April 2024 that the resident was told by the landlord it would not consider a temporary move. The landlord confirmed it did not have temporary accommodation. At this stage, the landlord did communicate clearly that the resident could approach the local council for a temporary move, which was reasonable.
  5. The landlord decided on 28 May 2024 to refuse the resident’s management transfer request. There is no evidence that at that stage the landlord told the resident the reasons for the refusal. This caused her further inconvenience, and she ultimately complained of not knowing the reasons for the refusal. It was not until its stage 1 complaint response of July 2024 that the landlord told the resident the reasons for refusal. As such, there was a delay of 56-calendar days in providing its refusal reasons to the resident. The delay was unreasonable, however, when it did set out its reasons it was in line with its rehousing policy.
  6. We have not been provided with any contrasting evidence which shows the landlord failed to appropriately consider a management transfer. We have not seen any evidence the landlord’s reasons for refusal was not in line with its rehousing policy. Therefore, the landlord was not obliged to provide a permanent move to the resident at that stage.
  7. The landlord accepted in its final response that there had been delays in responding to the resident and the distress, and inconvenience caused. It apportioned £100 in compensation for these failings. Under our guidance on remedies, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by service failures. We have considered the initial 41-calendar days delay for the landlord to take action and the 56-calendar days delay in providing its refusal reasons. Taking this into account, the £100 offered by the landlord was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  8. We are satisfied the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about discrimination. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint investigation, it found no evidence of discrimination. It showed support by suggesting she contact the police if she were at risk of harm, which was reasonable.
  9. Overall, the landlord apologised to the resident and attempted to put things right. It revised its compensation offer when considering the resident’s circumstances and vulnerability. It also showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously by advising her on a mutual exchange, which it said would be the quickest way for her to move. The landlord was providing support despite it refusing a management transfer, which was reasonable. As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved. This finding has been made on the understanding that the financial remedy of £100 is paid to the resident, if not already done so.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it would acknowledge complaints at stage 1 in 5–working days and it aims to respond within 10–working days from acknowledgement. It also states that at stage 2 it would acknowledge complaint escalations in 5–working days, and it aims to respond within 20–working days of acknowledgement. Extensions can be agreed.
  2. The resident submitted her complaint on 3 July 2024 and it was acknowledged by the landlord appropriately within 5–working days. The landlord said that it provided its stage 1 complaint response late. In line with the landlord’s policy its complaint response was due by 18 July 2024. We have found the landlord did tell the resident on 17 July 2024 that it aimed to complete its stage 1 complaint response by 30 July 2024. Ultimately, the response was provided 1-working day over its 10-working day timescale. Its action to tell the resident about extending the deadline was appropriate in the circumstances.
  3. The evidence shows the resident escalated her complaint on 30 July 2024 and it was acknowledged by the landlord on 31 July 2024,which was appropriate. However, in the landlord’s final response it said it was late in acknowledging the resident’s complaint escalation. There is no evidence this was the case and therefore the landlord has miscommunicated this to the resident. However, this would not have adversely affected the resident’s complaint journey and its timeliness of its stage 2 complaint response was in line with its policy.
  4. The landlord apologised and offered £100 for its complaint handling failings and the time and trouble expended by the resident. This offer of compensation towards the 1-working day delay was generous, but ultimately within what we would expect in our guidance on remedies for short duration service failures. As the landlord had identified the error and put things right, we find reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. This finding has been made on the understanding that the financial remedy of £100 is paid to the resident, if not already done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Recommendation

  1. If the landlord has not done so already, it is recommended to pay the £200 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response of 28 August 2024, comprised of:
    1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    2. £100 for its complaint handling failures.