Peabody Trust (202010415)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010415

Peabody Trust

16 April 2021

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 the resident’s dissatisfaction with:
1. the water rate charges; and
2. the availability of parking and the restrictions preventing her from obtaining a permit.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an Assured Non-Shorthold Tenant, in respect of the property, since May 2019.
The scheme which the property is situated in is subject to a Section 106 agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A Section 106 agreement creates a restriction or obligation that is associated with the granting of planning permission. In this case planning permission was granted for the scheme on the grounds that it would be a car free development.
Where a property is subject to a Section 106 agreement, making it car free, the associated local authority will normally decline a resident’s application for a ‘residential parking permit’.

Legal and policy framework

Tenancy agreement

For a greater understanding of both the landlord’s and the resident’s responsibilities, the Ombudsman has reviewed the tenancy agreement. Of particular relevance the Ombudsman notes that under section 3.2.2, entitled “Other bills”, it explains:
1. The resident must pay all costs which she is responsible for, including water charges, heating, electric and other costs accrued in running her home, unless they are included in the weekly/monthly payment.

Complaints Policy

The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its complaints policy. The Ombudsman has reviewed this in an attempt to establish how complaints are managed at each stage, however has been unable to identify the timeframes within which the landlord aims to respond to complaints.

Compensation Policy

The landlord has also provided this Service with a copy of its compensation policy. Amongst other points, this indicates:
1. Where there has been a minor disruption caused by the landlord, which has resulted in inconvenience, trouble and time spent, compensation of £1-£100 will be offered.
2. Where there has been a minor failure to adhered to compliant procedures or policy, managing the complaint effectively or poor communication, compensation of £1-£25 will be offered.

Summary of events

On 8 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She informed it that she had learned of a special condition, agreed between the landlord and local authority, which prevented her from being able to obtain a parking permit. She asserted that this was a clear breach of her tenancy agreement and therefore enquired about the process to pursue a complaint. She stated that special conditions were legally required to be listed in the tenancy agreement prior to sign up.
The landlord replied on the following day. It acknowledged that the resident was having difficulty acquiring a parking permit and explained that generally, with properties where there was no parking, this would have been highlighted at viewing by the Letting Officer. The Team Leader for lettings would, however, respond to the resident’s query in due course.
In response, the resident explained to the landlord that she had not only asked about this, she had also made the Letting Officer aware that she had a car. She believed that if the landlord was letting the property with such an unusual restriction, this should have been stated clearly in the tenancy agreement. She considered this to be unacceptable. She additionally did not feel that the Lettings Team were the appropriate people to deal with the matter.
The landlord confirmed on 10 June 2020 that the Lettings Team Leader be in touch shortly.
The Ombudsman notes that within back and forth correspondence between the landlord and resident, in which the resident requested a zoom meeting with the Chief Executive to discuss her concerns, it was explained that the matter would be considered by the appropriate officer.
On 23 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It apologised that the resident had been having difficulty obtaining a parking permit and explained that generally, if there was no parking, this would be discussed at viewing by the Letting Officer. This would give the applicant the opportunity to decide whether they wanted to go ahead or not. The landlord noted that the Letting Officer had since left the organisation and so was unable to verify whether this had been discussed. It highlighted nonetheless that it did mention and insert in its tenancy agreement things which were specific to the tenancy.
The landlord also highlighted that the parking spaces on the estate were owned by a third party. Only five spaces were available to its residents and these had already been allocated. Other residents who had acquired permits or spaces had done so prior to moving to the new build. An agreement with the local authority meant that they were able to retain these.
On 27 June 2020 the resident explained to the landlord that she would not have considered the property if she had been made aware of the difficulty in securing parking. She therefore did not feel that an apology would suffice as she asserted that there were legal implications to the landlord’s failure to provide the necessary information. The resident stated that upon attempting to acquire a permit from the local authority, it was explained that the landlord had engaged in an agreement which prevented her from acquiring this. She stated that this “special condition” had never been brought to her attention.
On 10 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She explained that she had sent an enquiry on 15 June 2020 (which the Ombudsman has not seen) but had heard nothing back. The resident reiterated that she believed there to be a legal discrepancy with the parking arrangements and also raised her concerns with the landlord’s service charges. She informed the landlord that she had paid £123.40 per month and this included water usage, however she had still received a separate bill from Thames Water. The resident claimed that on agreeing the property, she had been informed that the water rates would be included in the service charge.
On 11 August 2020 the resident highlighted for the landlord that she had not received a response to her email of 27 June 2020 either. She reiterated that she had been told at sign up that the service charge covered the water rate but had since learned that this was not the case. She stated that as a result, she was now in arrears with Thames Water which had an adverse impact on her credit rating.
The resident expressed that she had written to the landlord in the past but had been fobbed off. She requested an explanation on why she was given the wrong information and wished to know what she was paying for within the service charge.
In relation to parking, the resident asserted that any special conditions involving tenants being able to apply for parking should have been included within her tenancy agreement and she should have been advised before moving in. She requested that the landlord take responsibility for these matters and offer an apology for her time and trouble. She additionally needed a solution for her car.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s correspondence and apologised that she had not received a response. It confirmed that an appropriate response would be provided in due course.
On 17 August 2020 the resident attempted to escalate her complaint. The landlord explained on the same day that once it had provided her with a full response (at stage one), she would be able to do so. It confirmed that the resident would receive a response by 19 August 2020.
On 19 August 2020 the resident contacted the landlord. She requested clarification on whether she was liable for the Thames Water bill or whether this was included in the service charge. She explained that she had not provided her details to Thames Water and so questioned whether the landlord did. She questioned why, if so, the landlord had not informed her that she was liable for direct payments to Thames Water. She added that the issues regarding parking still remained outstanding. If the landlord was unable to offer parking, she would require an alternative property.
On 20 August 2020 the resident explained that she had spoken with Thames Water and learned that the bill she had received was based on an estimate. She therefore sought access to the water meter in order to provide Thames Water with the correct readings however was unable to obtain this. She requested that the landlord assist her with these readings and also that it write to Thames Water specifying that the water meter was not located within the property. This would explain why she was unaware of the meter. She additionally requested that the landlord put in writing that she had been told that the water rates would be included in the service charge.
Later, on the same day, the landlord provided the resident with a stage one response (dated 18 August 2020). It apologised for the time taken to offer this and explained:

The special conditions mentioned by the resident related to a legal agreement to which the building permission of the resident’s block was subject to. The conditions restricted housing providers from providing car parking to new builds because it mitigated the impact on the local community and infrastructure. The landlord highlighted that the tenancy agreement did not indicate that parking was available.
Outside of the permission conditions, was an agreement with the local authority that if tenants already had a parking permit in the borough prior to moving to the estate, they would be able to retain this when taking their newbuild home.
The car parking space was owed by a third party and not the landlord. It did not have authorisation nor access to the parking space. The landlord advised the resident to contact her Neighbourhood Manager or the third party for more information.

In relation to the water rates, the landlord explained that these were not included in the Service Charge. It provided the resident with a breakdown of the charges and explained that as a registered landlord, it was responsible for passing details of new tenants to the local authority and utility companies. It was the resident’s responsibility, however, to register directly. The resident was advised on where the water meter was however was informed that she would need a specific (FB1/FB2) key.
On 25 August 2020 the resident advised the landlord that she wished to escalate her complaint to the next stage of its complaints process. The landlord therefore confirmed on 28 August 2020 that the resident would receive a response on or before 24 September 2020.
On 23 September 2020 however, the landlord explained to the resident that it was unable to complete the review by the proposed date. It explained that it would therefore seek to provide a response by 9 October 2020. It noted that it would recognise this additional delay within its response.
On 9 October 2020 the landlord provided its final response. The landlord reiterated the points made within its stage one response and added:

The resident’s tenancy agreement was a legal document and as the property did not have an exclusive parking space, it was not necessary for it to include a clause in the agreement specific to parking.
Residents who held parking spaces or permits prior to their move would have had their permits honoured by the local authority. This was why some residents within the block has access to parking spaces.
On completion of the development, only five spaces were assigned to the rented units and these had all been allocated. The landlord acknowledged that the resident now had to park elsewhere at a cost but was unable to allocate parking to her.

In relation to the resident’s water bills

It had looked at its records in detail and could find nothing to suggest that the resident was advised that the water rates would be included in the service charge element of the rent. It also could not speak to the lettings officer concerned as they were no longer employed by the landlord. In light of this, it was unable to conclude this matter.
As the resident had asked it to contact Thames Water, it has done so. As it had previously demonstrated however, the water rates were not included in the resident’s service charge breakdown. It therefore would not reimburse the resident for this bill.

The landlord noted nonetheless that the resident’s experience had not been positive. It concluded that it would offer the resident £75, made up of £50 for the time, trouble and inconvenience pursuing her complaint; and £25 for the delay in offering a complaint response.

On 17 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and explained that she wished to reject the compensation offer. She explained:

She was dissatisfied that the tenancy agreement had not stipulated that residents of her block would be unable to apply for a parking permit due to the agreement that was made. This information should have been verbally given on sign up and if not, included in the tenancy agreement. She believed that this should have been a legal requirement.
Parking in the third-party carpark was the only solution as there was nowhere else to park her car. It this solution could not be offered, she would either need to move or have her car finance paid off early.
She did not believe that the landlord correctly addressed her points about the location of the water meter or her inability to access this. It also did not take full responsibility for the miscommunication at sign up. The landlord still had not provided a way in which the resident could access the water meter to obtain the accurate readings. She also did not believe that the landlord had contacted Thames Water on her behalf.

The resident requested proper financial compensation for her anguish and that the landlord find a solution for her car or that the landlord consider the above options.

The resident additionally contacted the landlord on 22 October 2020 and reported that a parking garage space, opposite her block, had become available. She requested that the landlord contact the local authority in hope that she could bypass the waiting list and obtain the space.
On 29 October 2020 the landlord responded to the resident. It explained:

It would not act on the resident’s behalf to purse potential availability with another local authority. The resident would need to make contact herself and apply for to their waiting list.
It confirmed for the resident that it had spoken with Thames water on 9 October 2020 and that her response was sent shortly after. It was unable to discuss the specific details of her account however, due to data protection restrictions.
In respect of the water meter, it was explained that Thames Water would access this upon attending for a reading. Most meters were located within a closed cupboard and would need to be accessed with a key which Thames Water would have access to. The landlord advised contacting the neighbourhood manager to re-establish where the water metre was located.

The landlord concluded that it was unable to allocate a parking space for the resident’s vehicle and the residents request for a home based on this did not meet its criteria for a transfer. It added that it would not make any payments towards clearing the finance on the resident’s car.

Assessment and findings

The water rate charges

The resident has asserted that at sign up, she had been informed by the landlord that water rate costs would be included in the service charge. A complaint was therefore raised upon receipt of a bill from Thames Water. Due to the lack of evidence available, this Service is unable to comment on what was and was not disclosed at sign up. The Ombudsman has therefore only commented on the landlord’s actions and the documentary evidence available.
The Ombudsman is content that following the resident’s complaint, the landlord investigated its records to establish whether there had been an agreement to include the water rate within the resident’s service charge. The landlord was unable to find any evidence of this and as the member of staff in question had left the organisation, explained that it was unable to verify the resident’s assertion. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord was therefore unable to conclude on whether there had been miscommunication. The landlord did, nonetheless, take this opportunity to confirm for the resident that the water rate cost was not included within the service charge. The landlord provided the resident with a breakdown of the services included in the charge, as the resident requested, and explained that it was the responsibility of the tenant to register with the appropriate utility companies. This was appropriate.
Adding to this, the Ombudsman has reviewed the resident’s tenancy agreement and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this confirms that the landlord was not responsible for the water rate costs. Under paragraph 3.2.2. it is agreed that the resident would be responsible for all costs accrued in running her home, including water charges. The agreement does suggest that there may be an exception where the costs are included in the weekly/monthly payment, however section 1, entitled “Your rent and service charges” offers no indication that these charges were. Responsibility for this cost subsequently fell with the resident.
The Ombudsman has therefore been unable to identify any maladministration. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took the decision not to reimburse the resident for the cost of her water bill or to write to Thames Water to accept liability for the cost. The Ombudsman is also content that the resident was advised on how access could be obtained to make note of the water readings.

The availability of parking and the restrictions preventing her from obtaining a permit

In a similar respect, the Ombudsman notes that there was conflict between the accounts provided by the landlord and resident. While the resident reported that she had not been informed of the restrictions to parking (and to obtaining a permit as a result of the S106 agreement), the landlord expressed that this would have been raised with the resident by the Lettings Officer at viewing, to enable the resident to make an informed decision. Due to the lack of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to determine what was shared at sign up and therefore is unable to comment on whether reasonable disclosure was made at this time. The Ombudsman has been unable to locate any records, other than the tenancy agreement, which were created prior to sign up and notes that the landlord too was unable to verify the information shared by its Lettings Officer as the individual had left the organisation.
The Ombudsman notes, however, that much of the resident’s complaint concerned the landlord’s decision not to include the “special condition” within the tenancy agreement. While the Ombudsman does agree that it would have been reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to have detailed the restriction in writing (whether within the tenancy agreement or not), to ensure that the resident understood the implications of the S106 agreement, the landlord was not obligated to do so. The Ombudsman therefore cannot see that the absence of this detail within the tenancy agreement was a breach, as the resident suggested.
What’s more, on review of the tenancy agreement and as indicated by the landlord in its complaint responses, no promise of parking was made and therefore, there was no requirement to detail the landlord’s parking arrangements or to make any accommodation for the resident’s vehicle. The landlord’s refusal to contact the local authority on the resident’s behalf or to provide a parking solution was subsequently not unreasonable. Rather, it was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident to make contact with the suggested third party, if she wished to obtain one of its spaces.
It was appropriate for the landlord to explain that things which were specific to the tenancy were included within the tenancy agreement. By signing the agreement, the resident accepted that no provision would be made by the landlord.
The Ombudsman is also content that the landlord provided the resident with suitable explanations within its complaint responses. The landlord explained that the condition restricted housing providers, such as itself, from providing parking to mitigate the impact on the local community while also reminding the resident that parking was never offered under the terms of her agreement. The landlord also appropriately explained why there were other residents who were able to obtain parking, to assure the resident that there was not any disproportionate or favourable treatment.
The Ombudsman has therefore been unable to identify any maladministration. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s assertion that this had never been brought to her attention and would encourage the landlord to ensure that such matters are highlighted at the earliest opportunity moving forward. Still, nonetheless, the absence of the condition within the resident’s tenancy agreement has not been deemed inappropriate. It is clear to the Ombudsman that parking was never an option for the tenant.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord delayed in offering the resident a stage one response. While the Ombudsman has been unable to identify the landlord’s general response timeframes within its complaint policy, it has been noted that an unreasonable amount of time had elapsed before the landlord provided the resident with an official response.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the parking arrangement as early as 8 June 2020. Within her correspondence, she informed the landlord that she wished to know how she could pursue a complaint. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord should have recognised this as a complaint and advised the resident of the next steps under its complaints process / when she could expect a complaint response. The landlord should have contacted the resident to obtain any further details it required regarding the complaint and subsequently should have provided its response within the weeks that followed. The Ombudsman cannot see that this was done, however. While there was back and forth communication in which the landlord attempted to respond to the resident’s comments, it did not provide an official complaint response until 20 August 2020 (despite confirming on 17 August 2020 that a full response would be offered by 19 August 2020). This was inappropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response should not have taken over two months to issue.
The Ombudsman also notes that following the resident’s email on 27 June 2020, the landlord failed to offer a response. The resident subsequently made further contact on 10 August 2020 reiterating her dissatisfaction and chasing a reply. This, in the Ombudsman’s view, further delayed the resident in resolving her dissatisfaction.
Lastly, at stage two, the landlord delayed in offering its final response. While it had initially proposed to review the resident’s complaint by 24 September 2020, the final response was not issued until 9 October 2020, again delaying the resident in achieving resolution.
The Ombudsman is content, however, that the landlord advised the resident on 23 September 2020 that it needed more time and agreed a new timeframe for its final response, which it was able to honour. This was appropriate. What’s more, the landlord informed the resident that it would recognise the delays in its Service within its complaint response and the Ombudsman can see that it did this.
In recognition of the resident’s experience, including her time, trouble, and inconvenience, the landlord awarded the resident £50. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was appropriate and as shown in the Legal and policy framework section of this report, was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. Furthermore, the landlord awarded £25 in recognition of its complaint handling delays and this was also in line with the landlord’s policy. The Ombudsman is therefore content that the landlord made an offer of redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s dissatisfaction with the water rate charges; and
2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s dissatisfaction with the availability of parking and the restrictions preventing her from obtaining a permit.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord made an offer of redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. Upon review of the evidence, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord was responsible for the resident’s water costs. As per the tenancy agreement, the resident was responsible for the costs accrued in the running of her property and this included water usage. What’s more, the Ombudsman cannot see that any agreement was made which suggested that the costs would be included within the service charge. The Ombudsman has seen the breakdown of the service charge costs and cannot see that water rates were included.
2. While the resident asserted that the landlord should have included the Section 106 conditions agreed between itself and the local authority within the tenancy agreement, the landlord was not obligated to do so. The Ombudsman has therefore been unable to identify a breach in responsibility. The Ombudsman is unable to establish what was discussed at sign up, and subsequently has been unable to comment on this aspect of the complaint. The Ombudsman would, however, recommend that moving forward, the landlord ensures that such details are brought to the attention of new residents and that the appropriate records are held to reflect this.
3. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord had no obligation to arrange a parking solution for the resident. As per its complaint responses, entitlements which accompanied the resident’s tenancy would have been included within the tenancy agreement and parking was not one of them. Acceptance of the tenancy agreement was therefore acceptance that the residence would not include parking. Any arrangements for parking would therefore be the responsibility of the resident.
4. The Ombudsman is satisfied that while the landlord’s complaint response and communication resulted in delays in the resident achieving resolution, the landlord appropriately recognised this within its final response and took reasonable steps to put things right. The landlord appropriately considered the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident and in the Ombudsman’s view, made an offer of redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.