Peabody Trust (202232076)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232076

Peabody Trust

19 September 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:

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom, first floor flat. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the landlord’s records, although she said her daughter has asthma.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 October 2022 and reported the light fittings in the kitchen and bathroom were not working. She also said there was an infestation of mice and there was damp and mould in the bedroom.
The landlord arranged an appointment on the same day to inspect the damp and mould on 28 October 2022. The landlord’s pest control contractor visited the resident’s home on 7 October 2022 and laid traps. It recommended the landlord undertake ‘‘proofing’’ works to prevent mice accessing the property through the holes in the walls and floors.
The resident made a complaint on 10 October 2022. The landlord visited the resident’s home on 18 October 2022 to repair the lights but was unable to carry out the work because the resident was unwell.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 November 2022 and said:
1. It had been unable to contact the relevant members of staff but would provide an update once the necessary information had been provided.
2. A further appointment had been arranged for pest control to visit on 14 November 2022.
3. It would confirm the appointment to check the electrics.
4. The report of damp and mould was not part of the resident’s initial complaint, but it would arrange for someone to contact her to agree an appointment to carry out the work.
5. It would confirm its offer of compensation once all the works had been completed.
The resident asked the landlord on 18 November 2022 for an update following a visit by pest control. She said the mice infestation would not be resolved until the holes had been filled in. She also said no one had been in touch about the lighting.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 3 March 2023. She told the landlord on 15 March 2023 that the mice would return unless the holes were filled. She asked the landlord to carry out an inspection of the property before carrying out the works or arrange for the holes to be fully boarded up.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 12 May 2023 and said:
1. It did not complete the proofing work within a reasonable timescale and this caused the resident inconvenience. The work was done on 28 March 2023.
2. It failed to meet its repair obligations in relation to the lighting work. The work was done on 13 April 2023.
3. Its contractor was due to visit the resident’s home on 18 May 2023 to inspect and resolve the issue with damp and mould.
4. It did not reply to the resident’s complaint in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. The complaint would be left open and monitored to ensure there were no further delays.
5. It would award £350 compensation. This comprised of £200 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience and £150 for its poor complaint handling.

Post complaint events.

The landlord arranged for the proofing work to be carried out on 28 March 2023.
The resident told this Service on 11 September 2024 that the proofing work was unsuccessful and that further work had to be carried out in July 2024. She also said the landlord did not undertake any damp remedial work in her bedroom until July 2024 and an extractor fan had still not been fitted in the kitchen. She noted there was no evidence of damp or mice following the completion of the work.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.

The ‘Housing Health and Safety Rating System’ guidance sets out a general duty on landlords to ensure that the property is habitable and safe to live in. This includes ensuring that the property is free from hazards (such as infestations) that could potentially lead to infections. Landlords are also expected to monitor the situation and provide residents with a timescale for the completion of any required works, where appropriate.
It is not disputed that the resident told the landlord she had an infestation of mice in her home, although it is unclear from the housing records when the report was made. The resident said she first reported the issue in May 2022, while the landlord’s records note it did not receive the report until 3 October 2022.
Whilst the tenancy agreement is silent on the landlord’s responsibilities regarding infestations, its pest control policy confirms it assesses reports of infestations where they are believed to be in the building structure of blocks of flats. The landlord says it will complete proofing works to prevent future infestations. Mice are included in the landlord’s definition of pests.
It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for a contractor to visit the property on 7 October 2022 and carry out an assessment. This was in accordance with its pest control policy.
The contractor identified there was a large hole in the bathroom wall and 1 on the bath panel. Holes were also identified around the pipes in the kitchen. It was appropriate for the contractor to lay traps and recommend the landlord undertook proofing works to prevent mice accessing the property in the future. It also recommended the landlord removed the bath panel and the kick boards in the kitchen to check for other holes. There is no evidence the landlord raised a job to do this. This was a failure.
The landlord arranged for its contractor to carry out a follow up visit on 14 November 2022. This was appropriate and ensured the situation was monitored. While no evidence of mice were found during the visit, the contractor noted that the proofing works had not been completed and the landlord had not made contact with the resident. The landlord’s failure to do this was not appropriate and meant there was a risk of an infestation of mice in the future. It also meant the landlord did not meet its repairing obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement, which includes keeping internal walls and plasterwork in repair. This was a further failure on the part of the landlord.
There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 18 November 2022 in which she asked the landlord to arrange for the holes to be filled. The landlord’s failure to do this was not in accordance with its repairs policy which says it will arrange an appointment for a member of staff or a contractor to visit and assess what needs doing.
While the housing records confirm the landlord raised a repair on 19 January 2023 to proof the holes in the walls, it is unclear when the appointment was booked for or whether the resident was provided with an update. This demonstrates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
An operative attended on 9 March 2023 to complete the work, but it was noted on the repair records that while the holes were filled in, a further visit ‘‘may be required given there were holes all over the house and the resident was not happy.’’ This indicates the landlord did not correctly assess the work required at the outset. The failure to do this and complete the work was a failure and caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The resident told the landlord on 15 March 2023 that the work that had been done would not resolve the problem and the holes needed boarding up. She asked the landlord to carry out an inspection before any further work was completed. It was appropriate for the landlord to respond on the same day and confirm it would chase up the matter. This demonstrated it was resolution focused and wanted to put things right for her. The housing records confirm the proofing work was completed on 28 March 2023.
Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to offer an apology in its final complaint response on 12 May 2023, it did not identify any learning from this aspect of the resident’s complaint. This was a further failure. This Service’s dispute resolution principles encourage landlords to not just resolve the immediate complaint, but to learn from outcomes in order to improve its wider service delivery. The overall offer of £200 compensation was not sufficient to put things right for the resident.
In summary, the landlord initially dealt with the resident’s reports of a mice infestation appropriately. It arranged for its contractor to visit the property, carryout an assessment and lay traps. It also arranged for a follow up visit. It did not, however, act on the recommendations of its contractor to carry out proofing works to prevent mice from entering the property until March 2023; some 5 months after the resident reported the problem. It is evident that the situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation for which it is ordered to pay the resident an additional £200 compensation on top of the amount already offered.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord has a duty to carry out repairs and works in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This confirms the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building including walls, gutters and external pipes. It also has an obligation to ensure it complies with the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Whilst reasonable timescales are not defined in law, the potential health risks from damp and mould are significant.
The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 3 October 2022 there was damp and mould in the bedroom. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had an obligation to investigate the report in accordance with its damp, mould and condensation policy. This says it takes a proactive approach and prioritises work to tackle damp and mould. No timescales are included in the policy for carrying out damp inspections or ordering works.
It was appropriate for the landlord to raise a job on the same day to investigate the cause of the damp and carryout a damp and mould wash, with an appointment arranged for 28 October 2022. Details of the appointment were sent to the resident via a text message given the landlord could not get hold of her via the telephone. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord took the report seriously and wanted to put things right for the resident.
The housing records confirm the landlord did not attend the appointment on 28 October 2022. It said this was because the operative was held up on another job. While it was appropriate for the landlord to attempt to contact the resident to inform her of this, the failure to attend the appointment caused delays and inconvenience for the resident. This was a failure.
It was appropriate for the landlord to try and make a further appointment on 2 November 2022, but it was unable to speak to the resident. An appointment was booked for 8 November 2022 and details were sent to her via a text message. The visit did not, however, go ahead because the resident said she would not be at home.
The landlord tried to contact the resident again on 21 November 2022 to make a further appointment but was unable to speak to the resident. There is no evidence the landlord followed this up or took action to investigate the resident’s reports further. The lack of engagement around the potential damp issue was contrary to the approach required under the HHSRS and the Ombudsman’s spotlight review on damp and mould. It also supports the resident’s view that the landlord was not taking her reports seriously and is evidence that it did not adopt a proactive approach in seeking to resolve the issue for the resident. This was a failure.
The housing records confirm the resident contacted the landlord on 8 February 2023 and said the property was in disrepair and she needed a surveyor to carry out an inspection. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request. This was a further failure and caused delays in addressing her concerns about damp and mould. This Service’s spotlight review on damp and mould highlights the importance of landlords clearly communicating with residents and sharing relevant information to ensure they have confidence in it and understand the next steps. This includes explaining if follow up work is required and providing a clear timetable for any future works.
The landlord did not raise a further job to investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould until 28 April 2023. This was not appropriate and further demonstrates the landlord did not take a proactive approach.
Whilst the landlord said in its final complaint response on 12 May 2023 that it took the resident’s reports seriously and arranged for an inspection to take place on 18 May 2023, it did not acknowledge its failings or set out the steps it would take to prevent a recurrence. This was a further failure and demonstrates a lack of awareness on the part of the landlord.
The landlord carried out an inspection on 18 May 2023, although it did not provide this Service with a copy of the damp inspection report. This demonstrates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord. The repair records confirm it was recommended that extractor fans were fitted in the bathroom and kitchen. It also noted there was water dripping from the bedroom ceiling, but it said it did not know where it was coming from. There is no evidence the landlord carried out any further investigation into this. This was a failure.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s enquiry of 30 August 2023 in which she asked for an update on what the landlord was doing to resolve the damp and mould in the bedroom, which she said could be due to a water leak.
It is unclear from the housing records when the extractor fans were fitted. The resident told this Service an extractor fan was fitted in the bathroom and work was completed in the bedroom in July 2024. This included placing new plaster boards on 3-bedroom walls. She also noted no extractor fan had been fitted in the kitchen.
In summary, the landlord failed to take a proactive approach to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It failed to attend a prearranged appointment, follow up the matter or carry out an inspection in a timely manner. The landlord’s communication with the resident was also poor at times. The lack of action meant the landlord did not meet its obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement or HHSRS. The offer of compensation was not proportionate in the circumstances and cannot be considered reasonable redress.
It is evident the situation caused the resident distress and she was concerned about the implications of the damp and mould. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and it is ordered to pay the resident an additional £1,050 compensation on top of the amount already offered. This has been calculated at £50 per month for the 21-month delay from October 2022 to July 2024.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to her kitchen and bathroom lights.

The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 3 October 2022 that the lights in her kitchen and bathroom were not working. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to raise a job on the same day, it is unclear whether it was raised as an emergency or a routine repair.
The landlord’s repairs policy says emergency repairs are attended to within 4 hours and include jobs which affect the health and safety of the people using the area. Routine repairs are carried out within 30 days.
The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property on 18 October 2022 but was unable to gain access as she was unwell. Whilst the resident told the contractor she would contact the landlord to rearrange the appointment, there is no evidence she did so. It was reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident on the same day to rebook the appointment, but it was unable to speak to her. This demonstrated it was resolution focused and wanted to put things right for her.
While the housing records confirm the landlord asked for a job to be raised to repair the light fittings following receipt of photographs from the resident on 2 November 2022, there is no evidence of any repairs being ordered at this point. Neither did the landlord confirm in its stage 1 complaint response sent on the same day when the work would be done. This was a failure and led to delays in carrying out the work. It also caused the resident inconvenience and distress.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request for an update on 18 November 2022. This was a further failure.
The housing records confirm the landlord did not raise a further job to repair the lights until 15 March 2023 and only did this following contact from the resident. The work was completed on 6 April 2023; some 6 months after she reported the problem.
In summary, the landlord failed to repair the kitchen and bathroom lights within a reasonable timescale. Whilst it was unable to complete the work in October 2022 because the resident was unwell, it missed 2 opportunities in November 2022 following contact from the resident to re-raise the jobs. It did not raise a follow up repair until March 2023.
The landlord’s overall offer of £200 compensation was not sufficient to put things right for the resident. It is evident the situation caused the resident distress. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for repairs for which it is ordered to pay £300 compensation on top of the amount already offered.

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

The housing records confirm the resident made a complaint on 10 October 2022. The landlord contacted the resident on the following day and said it would respond as soon as possible. It also spoke to the resident on 14 October 2022. This was in accordance with this Service’s complaints handling code which says landlords should seek to understand residents’ complaints and the outcomes they are seeking.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 November 2022. This was not in accordance with the 10-working day target set out in its complaints policy or this Service’s complaints handling code. This was a failure.
The landlord did not address the issues raised by the resident in its stage 1 complaint response. It said this was because it had not been able to speak to the relevant members of staff. This was a failure and not in accordance with this Service’s complaints handling code which says landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The housing records confirm the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 3 March 2023. The landlord told the resident on 15 March 2023 that it could not escalate her complaint until all of the repairs had been completed. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy or this Service’s complaints handling code. This says landlords must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all the stages of its complaints procedure and must have a clear and valid reason for taking such action.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 11 April 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm the complaint and the outcomes the resident was seeking. While the landlord said it would provide a response by 4 May 2023, this was after the complaint response was due. This was a further failure. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
While the housing records confirm the landlord contacted the resident on 10 May 2023 and noted that it needed more time to respond to the complaint, it did not do this until after the deadline date. This was a further failure. It said it would send a response by 11 May 2023.
The landlord did not issue its final complaint response until 12 May 2023. This was not in accordance with the 20-working day deadline set out in its complaints policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
Whilst the landlord set out the steps it was taking to improve its complaints handling, it did not identify any learning from the other aspects of the resident’s complaint. This was a failure. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy and there were delays in issuing its complaint responses. It also initially failed to escalate the complaint when asked to do so and did not identify any learning from key aspects of the complaint. The offer of £150 compensation was not sufficient to put things right for the resident. It is evident the situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord and it is ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation on top of the amount already offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for repairs to her kitchen and bathroom lights.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer an apology to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £2,000 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of a pest infestation.
2. £1,050 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her requests for repairs.
4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her complaint.
5. £350 compensation previously offered to the resident, if not already paid.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm its position regarding the installation of an extractor fan in the kitchen. An update must be provided to this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to undertake a review of this case within 8 weeks of the date of this report. A summary of the review findings must be shared with the resident and this Service. The review must include (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred, including its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident.
1. A review of its management oversight arrangements on reports of damp and mould.
2. A review of its approach to reports of pest infestations and proofing works.