The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Peabody Trust (202102862)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102862

Peabody Trust

12 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about his housing transfer application.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident contacted his MP at some point in 2020 (the exact date is unknown) regarding his concerns with his housing situation. The MP then corresponded with the landlord. The evidence indicates the landlord last spoke to the MP in December 2020, and advised that it would contact the resident to discuss his housing options.
  3. On 5 January 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord. The landlord’s records show he was dissatisfied that it had given him band D for a housing transfer. He was also dissatisfied that the landlord had not contacted him following the MP enquiry. He said the landlord advised him three years previously to register on the local authority’s housing transfer scheme, rather than on its own one, which meant he had wasted time.
  4. The landlord emailed the resident on 12 January 2021. It said his banding had been correctly assessed. It said it could not comment on the information given three years ago without details of who he spoke to. It acknowledged that it had taken a month to contact him following correspondence with his MP, and apologised for it. It is unclear whether this was an informal complaint response. 
  5. The landlord’s records show the resident escalated his complaint on 5 February 2021. He disagreed with his banding. He insisted that the landlord had given him incorrect information about which scheme to register with, and that the landlord had delayed contacting him following his MP’s enquiry.
  6. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 4 March 2021. It explained again that it needed evidence of misadvising him. It said his banding was correct under its assessment guidelines, and that, based on the information it had, would have been the same if he had initially registered on its transfer scheme. It acknowledged that it had advised the MP on 17 December 2020 that it would contact the resident, but did not do so straight away. It apologised for its delay, and offered him £25 compensation. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it can offer up to £100 when its failing has caused a minor disruption to the resident. The landlord’s complaint policy states that all complaints should be submitted within six months of when the event occurred, or when it became known to the complainant. The landlord can use its discretion to determine whether to accept a complaint submitted outside this timescale.
  2. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had not contacted him following the MP enquiry. The landlord acknowledged its shortcoming, apologised, and offered him £25 compensation. This was a reasonable offer, in line with the landlord’s compensation policy as it was not a significant delay (one month). Also, none of the evidence indicates that the delay caused a long term, or adverse impact.
  3. The landlord asked the resident to provide information concerning the alleged misinformation he believed he had received. It explained that without further details it was unable to comment further on the issue. It also explained that in line with its complaint policy, it could not look at issues which occurred more than six months prior. This was not an unreasonable response. In the absence of supporting information about his concerns, and the age of the matter, there were no meaningful steps the landlord could take to investigate the resident’s concerns.
  4. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s banding was correct, and reassured him that it would not have been different even if he had initially registered on its transfer scheme. Nothing in the evidence provided for this investigation contradicts the landlord’s explanation. The landlord’s responses, and handling of the resident’s complaint were therefore reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns were reasonable in the circumstances of the complaint.