Peabody Trust (202214079)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214079

Peabody Trust

5 January 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 management of vehicle obstruction to an access road.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder of the property, a two-bedroom first-floor flat, since 17 August 2009.
  2. On 29 December 2020 an email was sent to the landlord. This detailed the issues that residents were having with users of a nearby nursery who were blocking the private access road to the property.  This was happening at drop-off and pick up times for up to 10 minutes at a time.  It referred to a meeting held with the landlord in October 2019 when the same issues had been discussed. The pavement was also deteriorating due to use and causing a trip hazard. Leaseholders were concerned that they would be charged for rectifying this.
  3. On 13 May 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to say that its legal team had checked the nursery lease and contacted the local authority.  Letters had been sent to the nursery and the landlord was meeting with it the following week to try to resolve the issues with parking at drop off and pick up times.
  4. On 22 December 2021 the landlord emailed the resident thanking her for videos of the issue which have been forwarded to its solicitor.  It advised that there was a high evidence threshold for obtaining an injunction so more videos and witness statements would be required.
  5. The landlord emailed the residents group on 19 January 2022 to advise that it had met with the solicitor to discuss the next steps in the case. It also said that pre-action letters were sent to the nursery before Christmas 2021.
  6. The landlord opened a complaints case on 25 March 2022.  A note on the case asked who should respond to the complaint about the nursery operating without planning permission and said that the complaint issue started 2.5 years ago.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 April 2022 asking for an update because it had taken her 20 minutes to exit her property that day. The landlord responded on 19 April 2022 and said that it was finalising an undertaking with the nursery which should involve their own carpark.
  8. The landlord updated the resident about her complaint on 4 May 2022. It advised her that its legal team was in the process of seeking a resolution.  The resident told the landlord that she had been told the same thing for 2 years.  She highlighted that blocking the road could cause major issues if there was an emergency.  She asked why the nursery could not use its own entrance and asked how long it would take to resolve the problem. The landlord responded to advise that it couldn’t give an update at that time and advised the resident how to lodge a complaint.
  9. The next day the landlord apologised that the resident had not received a response to her complaint and explained that it had been raised as an ‘expression of dissatisfaction’.  On the 13 May 2022 the resident complained again and it was logged as a stage 1 complaint by the landlord.
  10. The stage 1 complaint response, sent on 31 May 2022, said that the landlord did not own the nursery and did not have direct control over it.  It said that in December 2021 a pre-action letter was sent and that since then it had been negotiating with the nursery to come to an arrangement.  After the last meeting in May it was decided that court action would be necessary so further strong evidence was required.
  11. The resident requested escalation of the complaint the same day.  She reiterated that the only way out from the property was blocked twice a day and that if there was an emergency this would be a major issue.  She said that the nursery was built without planning permission and nursery users just needed to use an alternative entrance on another road. She blamed the landlord for being incapable of sorting anything out.
  12. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 29 June 2022. It advised that it had checked the nursery’s planning permission and lease and everything was in order. It repeated that it had sent a pre-action letter in December 2021 and had been working with the nursery since to try to resolve the issues as it would need to demonstrate this at court.  The landlord said that it could not comment why the other entrance was not being used as it did not have a direct relationship with the nursery users.
  13. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and contacted the Ombudsman for assistance.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42 (f) of the Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. In this case the Ombudsman cannot order the nursery to comply with any actions because this would be a matter for the courts and it is our understanding that court action is under way.

The landlord’s handling of vehicle obstruction to an access road.

  1. The landlord confirmed that it owned the access road and that users of a local nursery regularly blocked the road at drop off and pick up times.  It took responsibility for addressing the issue which was correct.
  2. There were considerable delays in dealing with the issue, however. A meeting was held between the landlord and residents in October 2019 regarding the parking issues. There were long periods of time when the landlord failed to communicate with the resident and the issues were on-going. This shows poor communication by the landlord and is a failing on its part.
  3. The landlord advised the resident repeatedly that a pre-court letter had been sent in December 2021, but the court case did not appear to progress. The resident was not kept informed which meant she had to repeatedly chase the landlord for an update. This caused her further distress and inconvenience as she had to invest unnecessary time and trouble.
  4. The landlord advised the resident several times that it could not update her due to confidentiality reasons. While there may be some elements of a court case that are confidential it should have provided regular updates regarding actions taken, which would have alleviated the residents distress because she would have known that work was on-going to resolve the issue.
  5. The resident informed the Ombudsman in early December 2023 that the access road was still being regularly blocked and that she did not know what was happening regarding the injunction. This shows continued poor communication by the landlord which is also a failing.

Complaint handling

  1. There is evidence that residents first complained about the issue in December 2020.  The Complaints Handling Code states that a complaint must be defined as: “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. Landlords should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint”.
  2. A service request is a request from a resident to their landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right. Service requests should be recorded, monitored and reviewed regularly. A complaint should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request.
  3. In the email of the 29 December 2020, residents said that the problem had been happening “for some years” and referred to a meeting held over a year before where promises were made but residents had not been kept informed of the outcome. This was not a service request and should have been dealt with as a complaint, but this service has seen no evidence that it was.  This caused unnecessary delays in resolving the issue and was a complaint handling failure on the landlord’s part.
  4. The landlord’s complaint policy included an initial stage of the process called an ‘Expression of Dissatisfaction’.  This is an unnecessary stage in the complaints process which prolongs the complaint journey and is not in accordance with the Complaints Handling Code operated at the time. This is something that the landlord has since rectified and in its latest Complaints Policy there are now only 2 stages to the complaints process. In this case, however, it caused further unnecessary delays in resolving the issues and further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  5. The landlord failed to address all the issues raised by the resident in its complaint responses. The resident asked why the nursery users did not use the alternative entrance and the landlord replied that it did not have a relationship with the users so could not comment.  If it was in negotiation with the nursery this would be a point of discussion that could have been fed back to the resident, but the landlord failed to do this. This showed a lack of investigation on the landlord’s part and was a communications failure as it failed to manage the resident’s expectations.
  6. The landlord also failed to acknowledge the potential severity of the problem, and the anxiety that the resident might suffer when she considered what might happen in an emergency. She told the landlord on more than one occasion about her concerns regarding access to the property in an emergency, but the landlord showed no empathy in its complaints responses which was a further failure on its part.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of vehicle obstruction to an access road.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must confirm to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the following orders:
    1. To pay the resident directly a total of £800 compensation broken down as follows:
      1. £500 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident during the period that the complaint was in progress.
      2. £300 for time and trouble caused by the resident chasing responses.
    2. An apology to be made to the resident in writing by a senior member of staff regarding the amount of time taken to resolve the issue.
    3. A senior officer to review this case to ensure that a similar situation does not re-occur and to ensure that everything necessary is being done to resolve the parking issue.
    4. A full update on the status of the court case to be given to the resident in writing, detailing actions taken over the past 6 months.

Recommendations

  1. A further update on the status of the court case to be given to the resident every calendar month until the issue is resolved.
  2. The landlord to consider additional design features at the location of the parking issue, such as Sheffield bars. To prevent parking in the area and facilitate access for emergency vehicles at all times.