Peabody Trust (202214147)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214147

Peabody Trust

7 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports about the standard of communal cleaning, security of the bin store, and communication.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of a 2-bedroom second floor flat, owned by the landlord.
  2. The resident contacted this Service on 3 October 2022, stating that she had raised a complaint to the landlord on 8 September 2022, but received no response. Her complaint related to the security of the communal bin store, where a homeless person was residing, and she felt intimidated when putting out her rubbish. She raised 2 further complaints, on 20 November and 7 December 2022, which related to her dissatisfaction with the communal cleaning and lack of communication from the landlord’s staff.
  3. Following contact from this Service the landlord provided a stage 1 response on 17 March 2023. It stated that it had provided responses to the resident’s concerns under 3 previous complaint references. It provided an overview of each complaint and the outcomes. It said that although it had previously responded, there may have been some miscommunication in relation to the individual case reference numbers and a possible crossover of complaints. It was unable to see that there were any outstanding issues but offered to escalate complaints which had only received a stage 1 response.
  4. The landlord sent a further stage 1 response on 11 April 2023, following a conversation with the resident. She had explained that her complaints were new, despite being related to her previous complaints. It explained the actions it had taken to investigate the resident’s concerns about the communal cleaning and communication with its staff. It apologised for the time, trouble and inconvenience the resident had experienced in chasing its staff for responses and offered £50 compensation.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 19 April 2023, stating that its response had not adequately addressed her concerns.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response on 23 May 2023, the landlord stated that it was sorry for the lack of communication regarding the resident’s complaints. It provided a detailed response to each of her concerns relating to the cleaning and communication. It outlined its learning from the complaint and offered compensation of £50 for her time and trouble, distress and inconvenience, and £20 for complaint handling, totalling £70.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She wanted us to review the level of compensation offered by the landlord. She said it should complete the cleaning properly, carry out spot checks, and hold staff accountable.

Assessment and findings

  1. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Reports about the standard of cleaning, security of the bin store and communication

  1. The landlord’s estate management policy says that communal areas include gardens, hallways, parking areas, bin areas, lifts, community buildings, play areas and cycle stores. It is committed to carrying out regular visual checks of all neighbourhoods, monitoring progress of items outstanding from previous inspections, reviewing the work of contractors and enforcing communal areas fire safety policy. It promotes resident engagement opportunities allowing residents to attend estate inspections quarterly and asking for their views when conducting inspections.
  2. The evidence, provided to this Service, shows that the landlord had responded to reports about communal cleaning, the bin store, and communication previously. It provided an undated copy of a stage 1 response, which demonstrated that it had spoken with its estate services manager about the cleaning of the block. It had met with the resident on 20 June 2022, walked around the building, and taken onboard her concerns. It also responded to concerns about communication and asked a member of staff to contact her. It offered £75 compensation as a gesture of good will, due to the lack of response from its staff member.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process in October 2022. Its response included as follows:
    1. It confirmed that the caretaker visited twice a week. It undertook 7 hours cleaning on a Wednesday and 5 hours on a Thursday. It believed that 12 hours was adequate.
    2. It said that it inspected the block monthly and reported any cleaning or repairs issues.
    3. It provided a detailed response to the reports about the lack of contact from its neighbourhood customer specialist.
    4. It explained that it had visited multiple times and reported the bin store repairs, however, the homeless person was still gaining entry. It had contacted the police and rough sleepers service, however, each time it visited the person was not there. The police confirmed that the repair was complete, and the premises were secure. There were currently no rough sleepers at the location and the police had received no complaints. It had engaged with a rough sleeper near a supermarket, which could be the same person, but they had been reluctant to engage.
    5. It provided a response to redecoration of communal areas in that its team had re-formed following Covid-19 and was in the process of planning.
    6. It apologised for its complaint handling and customer service and increased its compensation offer to £150.
  4. The above response demonstrates that the landlord had responded to the resident’s concerns, reported in September 2022, about the communal bin store and rough sleeper. The actions it took to resolve the matter were appropriate. It also provided a detailed response, at the time, to the resident’s concerns and appropriately offered compensation for its identified failings.
  5. The resident raised further complaints about the cleanliness of the community rooms, communal cleaning and communication in November and December 2022. She sent photographs of the communal areas, taken following the caretakers visits for the previous month. She did not believe that the caretaker was completing 12 hours each week as the job completion forms did not reflect this.
  6. The landlord provided a copy of a further stage 1 response on 11 January 2023. This related to communication with the neighbourhood customer specialist, lack of action about fly tipping, estate service maintenance, and dissatisfaction with previous responses. It confirmed that it had addressed the fly tipping, provided details of when it attended, and said that it continued to visit bi-weekly. Its officer had tried to make contact on several occasions but had only been able to reach voicemail. It acknowledged the delays in getting back to her but found no service failure. Due to the time having to chase it offered £100 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience.
  7. Following contact from this Service, the landlord wrote to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process on 17 March 2023. It stated that it had provided responses to the resident’s concerns and included as follows:
    1. The first complaint related to a neighbour altering a fire door. It resolved the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process and offered £50 compensation.
    2. The second complaint related to the cleaning of the block, community rooms, fly tipping, and repairs to the bin store to prevent possible unauthorised occupancy of homeless individuals, lack of contact from the housing officer, communal and cyclical decoration, and smoking of illegal substances. It resolved the complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process, and it awarded £150 compensation.
    3. The third case related to fly tipping. It resolved the complaint at stage 1 of its process and, despite finding no service failure, it offered £100 compensation for inconvenience.
    4. It had responded to all concerns raised but acknowledged that there had been some miscommunication in relation to the individual case reference numbers. It had received an enquiry from this Service in October 2022 and the details specifically related to her reports of the bin store and presence of a homeless person. However, during the interim period, there had been further complaints received by both this Service and it. It seemed likely that there had been a crossover of different complaints. It acknowledged that the escalation to stage 2 of its complaints process was required in 2 instances.
    5. It had responded to all of the concerns raised and agreed resolutions, which included compensation. It was unable to see that any issues remained outstanding. It offered to escalate complaints which had only received a stage 1 complaint response.
  8. The resident responded on 19 March 2023, stating that she disagreed with some of the points made in the landlord’s stage 1 response. She agreed that there had been miscommunication and attributed this to the landlord’s poor complaints system, which made it difficult to keep track of her cases. Her response also included as follows:
    1. She had responded in January 2023, after multiple emails and assistance from this Service, to obtain the £100 compensation offered, which was eventually paid.
    2. It had mentioned repairs to the bin store to prevent “possible” unauthorised occupancy from “potentially” homeless individuals. However, she wanted to clarify that a rough sleeper was already using the bin room, not just “potentially”, as acknowledged in its team’s reply. Although the issue was resolved at the time, the bin room doors were later damaged, and a rough sleeper entered again. She made a new separate complaint about the issue and therefore did not feel it was resolved.
    3. She received a response about communal cleaning on 21 October 2022. A month later she filed a new complaint about the cleaning and sent it to the neighbourhood customer specialist but received no acknowledgement. This was not a repetition of her first complaint. The caretaker was failing to complete the full 12 hours based on the work completion form.
    4. There was a continuing lack of communication from the neighbourhood customer specialist, poor quality cleaning, and it was evident that the hours of care for the block were not being met.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments and provided a new stage 1 response on 11 April 2023. Its response included as follows:
    1. It said that it had reviewed emails and interviewed staff. Following its conversation with her on 28 March 2023, it had spoken with its staff member who explained that she had been in contact with the resident on multiple occasions. It had communicated on different issues relating to the block and been updating her directly.
    2. It had also spoken with its estate service operations manager who explained that the estate service area manager had also been in regular contact with her and visited the scheme. The block received 12 hours of cleaning per week which was adequate. Its estate services team advised the block was clean but required cyclical redecoration. It would send letters about future cyclical plans.
    3. She had reported that the cleaner was sitting in the car and not working. It explained that the caretaker had an unpaid lunchbreak and sat in her car as there were no welfare facilities in the block.
    4. It apologised for the inconvenience due to the communication received and had fed back to its senior operations manager. It offered £50 compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience for having to chase responses.
  10. The landlord’s response was appropriate and demonstrated that it had investigated the resident’s concerns. Its compensation offer was also reasonable and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance in the range of £50 to £100 for service failure.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 response detailed the reasons for the resident’s dissatisfaction. It had reviewed its stage 1 response, relevant complaint documents, and reviewed her supporting evidence. Its response included as follows:
    1. It apologised for the lack of communication regarding her complaints. It understood that this had caused frustration and assured her that it was taking steps to improve its communication and complaint handling.
    2. It had consulted its estate services area manager and senior operations manager about the cleaning. It noted that the caretaking team visited twice each week, and the cleaning issues occurred on the 5 days the site was not serviced. The Caretakers had not missed any visits since she raised her initial complaint, and it confirmed that the attendance sheets had been completed accurately since.
    3. The caretaker had been changed and it had no issues with the new caretaker team managing her block. It regularly monitored its cleaning staff to ensure that paid services were being delivered. This was done by regularly visiting each site, spot checking and immediately visiting site when a complaint had been logged.
    4. It had conducted a comprehensive investigation and determined that 12 hours cleaning had been fulfilled. It acknowledged that, based on her evidence, the attendance sheets had not been filled out correctly in the past. Accurate record keeping was essential to ensuring that all tasks were completed effectively, and in light of this, it had provided additional training to its staff.
    5. It was sorry that she was not satisfied with its response in relation to lack of communication. It understood that she still felt dissatisfied with the level of communication that had taken place. It said that if she remained unhappy with the communication or any other performance related issues, she could contact the officer’s manager. It did, however, believe that the officer had provided the appropriate level of communication since reviewing the stage 1 complaint.
    6. It apologised for its service failures and said that all feedback from its response would be shared to ensure it reviewed its complaint handling. It was conducting a thorough review of its policies and procedures across all departments. It noted the delay in responding to the complaint, apologised and offered £50 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience. It offered an additional £20 for its complaint handling.
  12. The landlord’s response was comprehensive and provided a detailed explanation of its investigation into the resident’s concerns. It apologised, demonstrated that it had learnt from the complaint, and offered compensation which was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for service failure. We, therefore, find that the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s reports about the standard of communal cleaning, security of the bin store, and communication.

Associated formal complaint.

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. It was evident that there was confusion in relation to complaint handling given that there had been a number of similar complaints previously. It was understandable that the landlord had felt that it had responded to the previous complaints, and not seen the new complaints as such. The new complaints were close in date to the landlord’s responses. This was highlighted in the landlord’s responses in the previous section of this report.
  3. However, the landlord’s responses demonstrated that it had accepted that there had been failures in its complaint handling for which it apologised. It also demonstrated learning from the complaint by reviewing its policies and procedures. It appropriately offered compensation in each of its responses which were in the range of this Service’s remedies guidance.
  4. This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s:
    1. Reports about the standard of communal cleaning, security of the bin store, and communication.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident £120 if not already paid. This includes the £50 offered in its stage 1 response and £70 offered in its stage 2 response.
  2. The landlord should ensure that it seeks clarification with residents, where new complaints are made which resemble previous complaints, that they require investigation.
  3. The landlord should contact the resident to ascertain whether there are any current issues with the bin store.