Peabody Trust (202229015)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229015

Peabody Trust

8 April 2024

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. The resident’s request for a reimbursement of communal heating charges.
2. The payment of compensation offered as part of a previous complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of compensation offered as part of a previous complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
The evidence indicates that the resident was offered £350 in compensation in 2017, as part of a complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs. When the resident raised her complaint with this Service, in March 2023, she expressed a concern that she had not received the compensation previously offered.
There is no evidence to indicate that the resident made a complaint about the landlord’s failure to pay the compensation in 2017, or within a reasonable period of time. Neither has this Service seen evidence which indicates the resident was unable to make a complaint about the 2017 compensation offer, within a reasonable time. Due to the time that has passed since the offer was made, this Service would not be able to effectively assess the landlord’s handling of the compensation offer. As such, it is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a 1 bedroom flat, in a building comprised of 2 flats. The resident’s tenancy started in March 2016. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable, due to suffering with a mental health condition.
The electricity supply for the lighting in the communal areas in the building went via the resident’s prepayment electricity meter. As such the resident paid for the cost of the communal lights upfront, and the landlord applied a credit to her rent account to cover the costs.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 7 February 2022 and asked it to clarify why the reimbursement for the communal hallway electricity was being credited to her rent account. The landlord responded on the same day and said it would discuss the matter with its service charge team, and come back to her. It is unclear whether it followed up at the time.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 July 2022 and said she had been waiting “weeks” for a refund for the communal electricity. She was of the view the officer dealing with her query had put in a request to the finance team, but the payment “never materialised”. The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 July 2022 to make a complaint about the “lack of response” she had received on the issue.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 August 2022 and said:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the query.
2. It calculated the refund payment based on the number of lightbulbs.
3. She needed to let it know how many light bulbs there were in the communal hallway, so it could process the refund.
4. As soon as it had the above information it would process her refund.
The landlord sent the resident another email on 4 August 2022 and said it had been made aware that she was already been receiving payments for the communal electricity. It advised it would “close this case”, otherwise she would be paid twice. It apologised for any confusion caused.
The resident responded on 9 August 2022 and said she was unhappy with its response and that she had “never agreed” for the payments to be credited to her rent account. She asked for the refund to be paid directly into her bank account. The landlord logged the correspondence as a stage 1 complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 August 2022 and said it had checked her rent account. It confirmed the communal electricity refunds had been applied to her account correctly and there were “no missed credits”.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 21 November 2022, and said:
1. In line with its policy, her rent account had been credited for the communal electricity usage.
2. It provided a table listing the credits to the account dating back to January 2017.
3. In line with its policy it credited the rent account, rather than pay the money direct to the resident.
4. It offered £40 in compensation for “complaint handling”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 November 2022 and said she was unhappy with its stage 1 complaint response, and wanted her complaint taken to stage 2, and said:
1. She was concerned that crediting her rent account meant it was effectively “reimbursing [its own] bank account”.
2. She was unhappy that she had to credit her own prepayment meter in order to keep the lights in communal areas working.
3. She found this difficult to afford, as she was on benefits and the “cost of living” was impacting on her ability to pay for it.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 December 2022 to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint, and said it would respond by 13 January 2023. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 December 2022 and said she had been told the communal electricity could be removed from her supply, and asked when this would happen.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 13 January 2023, and said:
1. It was “not obligated” to pay the refund of electricity directly, and its actions were in line with its policy.
2. It had checked and the refunds were not paid into its own bank account, and had been credited to her rent account.
3. The rent account was in credit, and she could request a refund of the credit to be paid to her bank account. She should contact her ‘collections officer’ if she wanted to progress with this.
4. It found the resident had requested a refund on “several occasions”, but it had not explained that the refunds were credited to the rent account.
5. It had considered the comments the resident made about covering the cost from her benefits. It acknowledged this was “challenging”, but it did not agree that it had not “considered this”.
6. It offered £50 in compensation for the “time, trouble, and inconvenience” of pursuing the matter.
7. It had reviewed the offer made for complaint handling at stage 1, and decided to increase the offer to £50 for the delay in providing the complaint response.
8. As learning, it would remind its teams to ensure complaint responses are sent within its published timeframes.
On 6 March 2023, the resident contacted this Service and asked us to investigate her complaint, and said:
1. She was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response.
2. She had asked it to process the refund of credit on the rent account, but it had not done so.
The landlord emailed this Service on 5 April 2024 and said it had made the following rent refunds to the resident:
1. £360.89 on 11 July 2022.
2. £397.76 on 5 April 2023.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

The landlord’s communal electricity refunds policy states that when a resident’s electricity supply is powering communal areas, it will refund them for the cost. The policy states “refunds are paid quarterly to residents”. The policy is silent on whether the refund will be credited to the rent account, or paid directly.
The landlord’s rent refund policy states that discretionary compensation payments are paid into the rent account if the resident is in arrears. The policy is silent on communal electricity refunds.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it has 3 categories of compensation for ‘time, trouble and inconvenience’. It can offer up to £200 for minor disruption; up to £400 for moderate disruption; and up to £600 for extensive disruption. For complaint handling, it also has 3 categories of compensation. It can offer up to £50 for a minor failure; up to £150 for a moderate failure; and up to £250 for a severe failure.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a 2 stage complaint procedure. Stage 1 complaints will be logged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaint responses will be sent within 20 working days.

The reimbursement of communal heating charges

After the resident raised a query about how the reimbursement of the communal heating charges was paid, in February 2022, it does not appear the landlord provided an appropriate explanation at the time. This inconvenienced the resident, as she did not get answers to a specific query she had raised.
After the resident raised a formal complaint about the issue, in July 2022, the evidence shows the landlord was unclear in its communication about the issue. The landlord appears to have indicated it would progress with a refund for the resident, in its email of 1 August 2022, and even indicated this would be paid direct into her bank account. The landlord changed its position, on 18 August 2022, and failed to provide an appropriate explanation, which caused a disappointment.
The landlord’s email of 18 August 2022 was inappropriate. It simply cited the resident had already received the reimbursement, without further explanation. The resident had not disputed she had been credited the money, and her query was about why it was not being paid directly. While appropriate to investigate whether it had reimbursed the money, it failed to address the specific concern about how the money was paid. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter, and the resident was inconvenienced, again, by not getting answers to specific concerns.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of November 2022, went some way to putting right the above failings. It gave a detailed explanation of the reimbursements and when they were made. That the resident only received this level of detail as part of a complaint response, that in itself was delayed, was inappropriate. The landlord failed to acknowledge its communication about the issue was delayed, and confusing for the resident. There were evident failings in its lack of communication about its position, and the length of time the resident had to wait to get answers. That the landlord did not acknowledge this in its complaint response indicates its stage 1 complaint investigation lacked the appropriate thoroughness into the substantive issue.
Both the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses suggest that its policy was to credit a rent account for communal electrics refunds, rather than refund money direct to a resident’s bank account. The policy the landlord provided for this investigation is silent on this point, so it is therefore unclear what policy the landlord relied on to come to this position. Given the resident had asked it to process a refund directly to her, to suggest its policy said it could not do so was inappropriate., and lacked transparency. Given the discrepancy with the landlord’s policy and its practice on such an issue, a recommendation is set out below.
The landlord’s position on the refund was inappropriate, as set out above. However, this failing is somewhat mitigated by the fact the stage 2 response explained how the resident could be refunded credit from her rent account. Whether the landlord refunded the resident’s rent is disputed. While we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments, the landlord has supplied evidence that indicates it has processed rent refunds on 2 occasions (July 2022 and April 2023). Given it is not possible to say definitively that the rent refunds were actioned on all occasions they were requested, an appropriate recommendation is set out below.
As part of her stage 2 complaint, the resident asked for an update on the landlord’s position in relation to removing the communal electrics from her supply. She also expressed a concern that she found it difficult to pay for the electrics up front, due to being on benefits. The evidence indicates (internal emails) that the landlord did give this consideration in August 2022. The outcome is unclear, and there is no evidence the landlord answered the resident’s query of December 2022.
Considering the concerns the resident had raised about paying for the communal electricity out of her benefits, it is concerning the landlord failed to address this issue. The comment in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response that it had considered this was inappropriate. It did not say what consideration it had given, or what its position was on the issues the resident had described. Its response was dismissive of her concerns. The resident had asked a specific query about its position on this issue, as part of her complaint. Its silence in its final response caused a further inconvenience. An appropriate order to put right this failing is set out below.
The resident’s initial query, in February 2022, did not get an appropriate response. After the resident raised a complaint about the issue, she did not receive a detailed explanation for another 4 months. The landlord’s position on the matter, outlined in its complaint response, differed from its policy, which was unreasonable. The landlord’s final complaint response accepted that its communication about the issue was lacking. The resident was inconvenienced by the delays, and the confusion caused by its poor communication.
The landlord’s final complaint response lacked the appropriate level of learning about its admitted failings, and what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. Its silence on the resident’s query about the removal from her supply, was unreasonable, particularly given the concerns she had raised about affordability. As such, the £50 in compensation it offered for its handling of the issue, did not fully put things right for the resident.

Complaint handling

This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint in July 2022. This was a failing in its complaint handling. Its policy, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), states that complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days. The Code says it must set out its understanding of what the complaint is about. That the landlord did not do so means the resident missed an opportunity to ensure it had the correct understanding of her complaint, and was left not knowing when, or if, it would respond to the complaint.
The evidence indicates that the landlord closed down the complaint, in early August 2022, after it had explained it would not be issuing a refund, as it had already done so. This was inappropriate and poor complaint handling practice. The resident had expressed dissatisfaction about its handling of the matter, that it closed the complaint down without issuing a formal response inconvenienced the resident.
The landlord did not issue a stage 1 complaint response for 4 months after the resident made her initial complaint. This was a failing in its complaint handling, and an unreasonable delay. Its stage 1 complaint response was the first time it had set out its position in any detail. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that its unfair, and hard to access complaints process, impacted on its handling of the substantive issue.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response offered £40 in compensation for its complaint handling. However, the response offered no apology, or any meaningful explanation of why it had offered compensation. This was inappropriate. It is reasonable to conclude that it offered the compensation for the 4 month delay, but that it did not explain this in its response was inappropriate, and lacked learning.
There was a delay in progressing with the stage 2 complaint investigation, as the landlord did not open the stage 2 complaint for 11 working days after it was made. It is noted that the landlord did send its complaint response within the timeframe set out in its acknowledgement. However, this was 32 working days after the stage 2 complaint was made, and a further failing in its complaint handling.
The stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting right the lack of detail in its stage 1 response, about its complaint handling. However, it failed to acknowledge or apologise for the fact that the stage 2 response itself was also delayed. This was inappropriate. The resident was further inconvenienced by another, albeit much shorter, delay without the landlord apologising and offering appropriate redress.
There was a long delay at stage 1, and a minor delay at stage 2. The comment in its stage 2 response, that it would remind staff of the importance of sending responses on time, lacked the appropriate level of learning. The stage 2 complaint response was silent on a specific matter the resident had raised. This was not in line with the complaint handling principles set out in the Code that says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. Considering the identified failings, and the inconvenience they caused, the £50 it offered for its complaint handling did not fully put things right for the resident.
We recently found similar failings in the landlord’s complaint handling for another case (reference: 202102403). In that determination we ordered the landlord to complete training with its complaint handling staff. The landlord provided evidence of compliance with that order on 1 March 2024. For the failings identified in this investigation, we would have made a similar learning order. This report has not made an order for the landlord’s complaint handling practice, as it has already recently actioned what would have been ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a reimbursement of communal heating charges.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the compensation offered as part of a previous complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The resident’s initial query about the communal electrics, in February 2022, did not get an appropriate response. After the resident raised a complaint, she did not receive a detailed explanation for another 4 months. The landlord’s position on the matter, outlined in its complaint response, differed from its policy, which was unreasonable. The landlord’s final complaint response lacked the appropriate level of learning about its admitted failings, and what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. Its silence on the resident’s query about the removal from her supply, was unreasonable, particularly given the concerns she had raised about affordability.
There was a long delay at stage 1, and a minor delay at stage 2. The complaint responses lacked the appropriate level of learning. The stage 2 complaint response was silent on a specific matter the resident had raised.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £500 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £50 it offered for its handling of the reimbursement of communal heating charges (if it has not already done so).
  2. A further £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the reimbursement for communal heating charges.
  3. The £50 it offered for its complaint handling (if it has not already done so).
  4. A further £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Write to the resident to outline its position on her query about removing the communal electrics from her supply.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider amending its ‘communal electricity refunds policy’ to reflect its practice in relation to crediting refunds to rent accounts as its default payment method.
Considering the disputed facts about the rent refunds, the landlord should meet with the resident to discuss her rent account and how she can request a refund of any credit on the account.