Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Peabody Trust (202102946)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102946

Peabody Trust

29 March 2022


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 report about an unauthorised structure.
  2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the estate inspections.
  3. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request regarding CCTV footage.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request regarding the CCTV footage. This is because paragraph 39(m) sets out that the Ombudsman ‘will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body’.
  3. The resident complained about the landlord’s decision not to allow residents to access footage when they request it, in connection with reports of ASB and crime in the area. In the resident’s web complaint to the Ombudsman, the outcome sought was for the landlord to revise its response to resident requests for CCTV footage in which residents appear.
  4. The landlord had said that should a crime be committed and reported to police, then the police may request access from the landlord to view the CCTV footage. It cited data protection reasons as the ground for providing footage directly to the police (rather than to residents).
  5. Disputes regarding the right to view data and the application of data protection laws or regulation may be escalated with the Information Commissioner’s Officer (ICO).

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and has said that the lease commenced in December 2011. The original lease for the property commenced in May 2009 with a separate individual. It has not been disputed that the resident and the landlord are presently in a resident and landlord relationship.
  2. The correspondence has included reference to the resident’s association. This complaint has been considered by the Ombudsman as the resident’s individual complaint against the landlord.
  3. The resident’s web form to the Ombudsman referred to a range of issues. The resident has since confirmed that she is not escalating all of her complaints to the Ombudsman (February 2022). The resident has also discussed issues with the landlord about cladding and fire concerns; these issues were not considered by the landlord in its responses which are under this current investigation. The resident has been advised on her options to progress separate complaints with this Service.
  4. It is evident that some of the resident’s complaint points have developed since the matter was considered by the landlord. The Ombudsman’s focus under this investigation is on the points which the landlord responded to under its full complaints process and which have been duly made and processed by the Ombudsman.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The lease states that the leaseholder shall not make alterations or additions to the exterior of the premises.
  2. The landlord has not provided its relevant estate and ground maintenance policy or schedule. The landlord did not dispute that this was a service which it provided; it told the resident that this had been suspended during the ‘pandemic program’ and that this would be carried out monthly by the neighbourhood management. It is understood that the estate inspection forms part of the landlord’s repair and maintenance services and services which leaseholders are charged for.

Summary of events

  1. On 14 October 2020 the landlord met with the resident in a resident meeting to discuss issues including the site inspection. The landlord was asked when the next site inspection would take place and if there was to be feedback on issues. The landlord said that this would be carried out monthly by the neighbourhood managers.
  2. The resident followed up with the landlord in November 2020 and the landlord said that its neighbourhood managers would continue to inspect the estate monthly and had not yet reported issues (apart from items in the communal area which had been addressed). It advised the resident to report repairs with its customer hub team. The resident asked if residents could meet the landlord’s staff during the monthly estate inspections so that they could be shown the issues “that may not be visible at first glance”. The resident said that aspects of the estate were “in disrepair and dangerous” and disputed that it was acceptable.
  3. The complaint was raised on 27 November 2020.
    1. The resident complained about the management of the estate, including the response to reports about unauthorised extension/structure to a balcony. The neighbour had built an extension on their balcony and this had not been taken down despite being reported to the landlord in June 2020. (The evidence shows that the landlord received an email in June 2020 notifying it of the neighbour’s actions of building something on their balcony. This was logged but the follow up action was not evidenced).
    2. The resident explained that despite two visits to the estate in August 2020 there was no visit to the site from a neighbourhood manager for a year before that.
    3. The resident said she had not received “meaningful feedback” from the landlord after the visits to the estate and requests to meet with management were ignored.
    4. A meeting between the landlord and resident from October 2020 was referenced in which the resident felt that the landlord’s view (that the estate looked fine) was “at odds” with the experience of residents living in the area.
  4. On 30 November 2020 the landlord acknowledged the complaint.
  5. On 11 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with its initial response and said that it would respond again by 24 December 2020. In its initial response, it apologised for the delay and said that the site inspection would be carried out on a monthly basis going forward. It did not respond to the issue about the illegal structure.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord shortly after its response of 11 December 2020 to raise separate concerns.
  7. The landlord’s final stage one complaint response (beyond its communication of 11 December 2020) has not been seen. The email of 11 December 2020 was subsequently considered to be the stage one response by the landlord and the landlord otherwise engaged with the resident about her other concerns (18 – 23 December 2020). The landlord acknowledged that the resident had outstanding concerns in respect of her original complaint and this was also escalated (6 January 2021).
  8. On 3 February 2021 the landlord noted as part of its internal investigation that it had not provided the resident with the inspection reports from visits to the property after it had agreed to do so in October 2020.
  9. On 12 February 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response. This was regarding a separate/adapted concern about an adjustment to the management fee due to the reported lack of management on the estate. In its response to this new issue, the landlord also addressed the resident’s original concern about estate inspections.
    1. The landlord said that there was a caretaker on site who could be reported to. It said that estate inspections were suspended during the pandemic program and a team were unable to confirm whether there could be a refund.
    2. The landlord acknowledged that there was a lack of communication which had drawn out matters “more than was necessary”.
    3. It recommended that the neighbourhood team review their procedure when following up actions to report back to residents.  
  10. On 18 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and said that there remained unaddressed items in connection with her complaint. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day and said that it would respond by 10 March 2021. The resident’s escalation included a new concern about items left by residents on their balconies, such as BBQs and gas cannisters. The resident confirmed the outstanding items to the landlord:
    1. She requested a timeline with guarantees and in writing of the removal of the illegal structure build by one of the residents (and how the landlord will address the fire safety issues such as BBQ on balconies; this was a new complaint).
    2. The resident was yet to receive any reports from site visits by the neighbourhood managers.
  11. On 12 March 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response.

Illegal structure

  1. The landlord said that it was working with a legal team and it was sending a third and final letter in February 2021 to the neighbour to give them an opportunity to remove the structure before the landlord decided to apply for the injunction. (Evidence of the landlord’s communication to the neighbour has not been seen by the Ombudsman).
  2. It also considered removing the structure itself and recharging the neighbour, however, there was need to allow the neighbour to respond to the final letter.
  3. It could not provide a timeline of events. It said that a member of staff was to update the resident about the progress of this.

Estate visits

  1. The landlord said that a member of staff had written to residents with a schedule of estate inspection dates with the residents and their neighbourhood manager from March 2021-2022.
  2. It apologised for not sending estate inspection forms previously as it had said it would and explained that this was an “oversight” by the team who should have explained that due to lockdown restrictions they had not completed any inspections (these were suspended). (Evidence of the estate inspections, feedback or arrangements have not been seen by the Ombudsman. It remains unclear what the current status of the visits are; the landlord said that it sent a schedule of this to residents while the resident has suggested that these were ‘scrapped’).

Items left on balconies

  1. Regarding this issue, the landlord said that it set up a schedule to monitor items left on balconies. Its neighbourhood team was working with the fire safety team to progress this matter, but this would take time as it was a substantial project.
  2. The landlord responded to this concern under its second and final stage two complaint response of March 2021 which had originally been escalated on the basis of other complaints. The BBQ and gas cannister issue had not been raised as part of the original complaint of November 2020 or responded to as part of the stage one investigation of December 2020 or under the first stage two response of February 2021. This aspect of the complaint is therefore out of the scope of this investigation.

Assessment and findings

Estate inspections

  1. The landlord’s obligation in respect of the inspections has not been evidenced but its communication to the resident indicates that this was not disputed. The resident remained dissatisfied with the frequency of the estate inspections and the lack of follow up communication from those which had taken place. The resident also remained dissatisfied with the lack of inspections at the close of the complaint process, which she said had been ‘scrapped’, contrary to the landlord’s communication that these had been scheduled.
  2. The landlord’s correspondence highlighted that it was aware of communication issues between the neighbourhood management team and residents (February 2021). Although it said that it recommended that the neighbourhood team review their process, evidence of any action taken in this regard has not been seen by the Ombudsman. Although the landlord identified that it had not responded to the resident’s request for a copy of inspection reports, it did not offer any redress. This was unreasonable.
  3. There has been no evidence to show that the landlord carried out the monthly inspections that it had repeatedly referred to in response to the resident’s reports about this. The landlord concluded the complaint by referring to communication sent to residents about upcoming inspection dates, however, it has not provided documentary evidence of this to the Ombudsman.
  4. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer timely and accurate details of the inspection schedule/ arrangements to the resident, including the reason for any delays in completing the monthly visits. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident redress for the time and trouble at the conclusion of the complaint process.
  5. The landlord highlighted that the resident was able to report any repairs to its customer hub in the absence of the inspections during the pandemic period, which was reasonable. However, the landlord did not offer reasonable redress for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in its communication or the lack of clarity over the schedule of inspections. Therefore, overall, there has been a service failure.

Illegal structure

  1. It has not been disputed by the landlord that one of its residents (‘the neighbour’) had a structure on their balcony which should have been taken down. Evidence about the impact of the structure is not clear. The evidence shows that the landlord had been notified of this from June 2020. The landlord said that it had sent three letters to the neighbour to have them remove the structure but at the close of the complaint in March 2021 this remained unresolved. 
  2. The landlord did not respond to this issue within a reasonable timeframe; a surveyor inspected the structure a year after it had been reported (reported in June 2020 and inspected in June 2021) and at the close of the complaint it was still not removed. Although the neighbour’s circumstances are not known, and it is understood that legal action is a last resort, the landlord has not evidenced engagement with this issue throughout the timeframe (either with the neighbour or with the resident, such as providing updates of the action taken). This was unreasonable.
  3. The landlord has also not evidenced its communication with the neighbour about the structure to the Ombudsman, which would have been reasonable in order to confirm the actions that it said it had taken in the final response.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the estate inspections.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about an unauthorised structure.

Reasons

  1. The landlord did not respond in a timely manner to the resident’s requests for information about the inspection reports and it has not evidenced clear or accurate communication about the scheduled inspections. The landlord did not offer redress for its identified failures in its communication. 
  2. The landlord did not respond within a reasonable timeframe to the resident’s report about a neighbour’s unauthorised structure on their property. The landlord was notified of the structure in June 2020 and inspected it in June 2021. The landlord did not evidence the actions that it had taken.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £150 for inconvenience, time and trouble comprised of £75 for its response to the report about the estate inspections and £75 for its response to the report about the unauthorised structure.
    2. Provide the resident with an update on any outstanding actions in respect of the unauthorised structure in the neighbour’s balcony.
    3. Provide the resident with an update on the status of estate inspections.