Peabody Trust (202453272)

Background

1. The resident reports having mobility and mental health issues. The property had a drainage incident on 21 December 2020 which resulted in sewage backing up into the property and causing damage. In February 2022 some damage and drainage issues remained outstanding. On an unknown date between February 2022 and May 2024 the property was taken on by the current landlord. The resident made no contact with either her former or current landlord between February 2022 and May 2024.
2. After the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process, the resident was moved out of the property temporarily and largescale repairs were undertaken. The resident reported further issues arising during this time period.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.
4. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. The landlord made an offer which provides reasonable redress in respect of:
   1. Its handling of repairs at property.
   2. Its complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property

6. There were delays in completing repairs reported by the resident beyond the 60-day timescale set out in the landlord’s policy, which had a significant impact on the resident. We noted several challenges the landlord faced which provides context for these delays. We identified some areas of good practice in the landlord’s attempts to overcome these challenges. Ultimately however many repairs remained outstanding at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was significantly delayed.
8. The landlord used its complaints procedure to be fair, put things right, and to learn from outcomes. There were several elements of good practice noted in the landlord’s complaint handling which allowed the landlord to effectively consider its failings and address the impact these had on the resident. The landlord effectively used its compensation policy to make an offer of compensation that provided reasonable redress to the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not investigated

9. The resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of events which took place between 21 December 2020 and 28 May 2024. We may not investigate events which were not brought to the landlord or this Service within a reasonable timescale. As the resident did not raise these issues with the landlord until 29 May 2024, it is not reasonable to investigate these events.
10. The resident also asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of events which took place after the landlord stage 2 complaint response. The evidence shows that although closely related, these events were complex and involved multiple new areas of dispute which the landlord has not had the opportunity to consider as part of a formal complaint. We cannot investigate events which have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and so our investigation does not consider events beyond 8 November 2024. We advise that the resident raise a new complaint with the landlord about any outstanding issues.
11. The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of the repairs in this case resulted in both physical and mental health implications to the resident. We cannot consider any alleged health impact as this is an area that should be settled through legal processes such as the courts, or the landlord’s liability insurer.

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the resident’s property

12. During our investigation we found that all parties agree that:
    1. There were outstanding repairs at the property between February 2022 and 29 May 2024, but the resident made no contact with the landlord during this time.
    2. The landlord should have resolved the resident’s repair issues within 60 calendar days of 29 May 2024, when she reported them, in line with its responsive repairs policy. However, by the time of the stage 2 complaint response, many of the repairs remained outstanding. During this time the landlord had missed an appointment and completed 5 surveyor’s appointments, which was unnecessary.
    3. The resident experienced a significant impact to her enjoyment of the property including intermittent smells of sewage, outstanding repairs to the toilet and bathroom sink basin, and various degrees of damage to other parts of the property, most notably in the kitchen.
13. The evidence shows that the reasons for the delays in resolving the repairs in this case after 29 May 2024 primarily relate to the volume of repairs reported and the complex technical nature of the repairs. The first drainage repair was completed by the landlord on 19 June 2024, in a reasonable timeframe. Further investigations took place and by 19 July 2024 internal landlord records show that it had identified over 30 required repairs to various parts of the property.
14. These repairs required different skills and expertise and many also relied on further specialist investigations being carried out beforehand. For example, the landlord had to investigate the condition of internal waste piping in the property before it could repair or replace the toilet and bathroom sink basin. On other occasions, attempts to complete repairs revealed more issues which required resolving first, such as on 29 October 2024 when the landlord conducted post-repair CCTV survey, which revealed further defects to the drain line. This was common throughout the repairs considered during this investigation and reflective of both the scale of works and the length of time that many of these repairs had been outstanding.
15. As a result, the landlord found it challenging to manage the programme of works and made the decision to keep as many works as possible with the same contractor, to retain better oversight. The landlord acknowledged on 7 August 2024 in internal emails that this would likely result in some delays but also improve the landlord’s ability to coordinate works and avoid associated issues. In view of the volume and nature of the works at hand, this decision was reasonable.
16. The evidence shows that the landlord frequently considered the impact these works would have on the resident. For example, on 13 August 2024 where it reminded relevant staff members of the need to provide a start date as early as possible for the next round of repairs to reduce disruption to the resident. Internal emails of 22 October 2024 show that the landlord had created ‘a set plan of action so that the resident could organise her daily life and medical requirements’ and that during the next round of works a staff member would attend to support the resident. This was appropriate and an example of good practice in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
17. The evidence shows that the landlord also took steps to reduce and mitigate delays where appropriate, such as by frequently requesting updates on repairs progress from relevant contractors or staff members. The landlord retained oversight of repair timescales and when it became concerned about a lack of progress, such as on 4 July 2024, it would send enquiries requesting ‘urgent updates’.
18. Overall, although there were delays which the landlord acknowledged reflect failings in its service delivery, the landlord took appropriate steps to avoid them, to retain close oversight of the works, and reduce the impact the works had on the resident where possible. The record keeping practices demonstrated in this case after 29 May 2024 were appropriate. Nevertheless, because there were failings, the landlord was right to consider the adverse effect the outstanding repairs and ongoing works were having on the resident in its stage 2 complaint response.
19. Our remedies guidance states that where there have been failings which have had a significant impact on the resident, and the redress needed to put things right is substantial, compensation of over £600 should be considered. In this case, the impact on the resident was multifaceted and significant in more ways than one. For example, the resident experienced significant distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s delays in completing her repairs and also experienced a loss of enjoyment for her property. The landlord appropriately considered both, in addition to an amount for missed or unnecessary appointments. The landlord offered £1,000 for distress and inconvenience and £100 for missed or unnecessary appointments. This amount provided reasonable redress for the likely impact of the landlord’s failings in these regards.
20. The landlord based the loss of enjoyment element of compensation on a value of 20% of the rent paid by the resident from the time of her first report. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that where a resident experiences full or partial loss of a room, it may consider a percentage of the rent in compensation. It gives an example of an unusable facility such as a bath, might lead the landlord to consider compensation equating to 5% of the value of weekly rent. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it noted that the resident’s loss of enjoyment related to:
    1. The smell of sewage frequently being present in the property.
    2. The resident having to flush her toilet with a kettle, and an outstanding repair to the kitchen sink basin, rendering it unusable.
    3. The resident reporting not being able to store food in the lower cupboards or put away small appliances due to the condition of the kitchen cupboards.
21. The landlord identified 3 areas where the resident’s use of the property was impacted, suggesting that it should have considered compensation based on at least 15% of the value of weekly rent in line with its policy. The landlord’s decision to base this compensation element on 20% of the value of the rent was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
22. The landlord’s decision to take this calculation from the date the repairs were reported, instead of the date the repairs became overdue 60 days later, further supports that this offer was likely reasonable. In conclusion, the landlord’s offer of £2,116.44 in respect of its handling of its handling of repairs, was in line with both its own compensation policy and our remedies guidance. This reflects an offer of reasonable redress.

23. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of being logged, and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Complaints and escalation requests should be logged within 5 working days of being received. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued on time. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 6 August 2024; however, it was not logged until 16 September 2024. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response took 68 working days, which was a significant delay and a failing.
24. The landlord included some information about events that took place between 21 December 2020 and February 2022 in its stage 2 response for context. However, the landlord explained that in line with its policy, it could consider any failings or compensation during this period. The landlord is right that its policy says it may not consider complaints about events that took place more than 12 months before the resident’s complaint. The landlord showed good practice by considering exercising discretion in this regard, because the resident explained she had not raised a complaint in the 2 years and 3 months period due to health reasons. However, it ultimately concluded that while it had taken the resident’s circumstances into account, it made the decision to follow its policy. This decision was reasonable, particularly in view of the time that had passed and the evidence that was available to the landlord.
25. The stage 2 complaint response itself, although delayed, demonstrated several elements of good practice in complaints handling. The evidence shows that the resident raised a large number of concerns and ways in which she was impacted by the issues. The landlord demonstrated its ability to be fair and put things right, by considering all elements raised by the resident appropriately. It offered a comprehensive explanation of the compensation it offered and the reasons for this. Where it could not do so, such as in respect of the resident’s allegation of health implications caused by the landlord, it appropriately shared the details of its liability insurer with the resident and instructed her on making a claim.
26. By considering all elements in detail, it was able ensure no elements of dispute were left unaddressed. For example, the resident had raised concerns about increased water bills resulting from her defective toilet flush. The landlord offered the resident £75 compensation for this element. The resident did not raise this issue again, suggesting that the landlord effectively resolved this element of the complaint. The landlord also conducted investigations and took appropriate actions in relation to several other challenging areas of complaint, such as allegations of unacceptable staff conduct and the resident’s concerns that the landlord’s actions had been a result of racial discrimination. The evidence shows that the landlord took these concerns seriously and carried out appropriate investigations into these elements. The landlord took appropriate next steps such as to speak with staff members involved and prevent staff members who the resident had raised concerns about from reattending the property.
27. The landlord also noted that the resident had raised some new issues in her escalation request and explained that its policy said that it should raise these issues as a new stage 1 complaint response. In consideration of the resident’s health issues and the ongoing impact of the repairs at the property; however, the landlord said that it would exercise its discretion and respond at stage 2 to prevent the resident going to further time and trouble. This was one of several examples seen during this investigation of the landlord taking appropriate steps in consideration of the resident’s personal circumstances.
28. The landlord was right to acknowledge that the delays were unacceptable and resulted in avoidable time and trouble to the resident. It offered £300 compensation in respect of this. The evidence shows that other lines of communication with the resident remained open and that it took steps to manage her expectations about the time it would take to respond to her complaint. In view of this, our remedies guidance states that where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident compensation of over £100 should be considered. As such, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

Learning

29. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord outlined areas of learning which it had communicated to the relevant teams. It summarised these areas as:
    1. Failures in escalating your complaint to Stage Two within five working days.
    2. Delays to identify the scope of work required.
    3. The need to consolidate our appointments from our surveyors.
    4. Prioritise extensive works for our vulnerable tenants.
    5. Proactively follow up with repairs to homes following a sewage incident.
30. The landlord’s proposed learning around the repairs were appropriate, demonstrating that the landlord understood the key reasons for the failings highlighted in this case. In view of the timescales considered and the challenges faced by the landlord that we have highlighted in this report, the landlord’s decision to feed these areas of learning back was a proportionate step to take.
31. In addition to the steps outlined above, we note from our wider casework with this landlord that during the period considered by this investigation, the landlord was undergoing major structural changes to its complaint team. This included recruiting more staff to deal with long waiting times for complaint responses. As such, its feedback regarding its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint was appropriate, and any further learning we could recommend would likely be of limited value in the view of the changes that have already taken place.
32. We note that the landlord had limited records available to it relating to December 2020 to February 2022, when the property was managed by the previous landlord. Although it did not respond to this element of the resident’s complaint, we note the good practice in the landlord’s attempt to identify areas of learning from this period.

Communication

33. The landlord’s communication with the resident was appropriate. It took steps to secure updates for the resident frequently and frequently tried to contact the resident with updates where appropriate. It returned calls as requested throughout the period assessed.
34. It considered the resident’s personal circumstances and kept the resident updated on a weekly basis following its stage 2 complaint response. Where delays were expected, it frequently contacted the resident in advance to manage her expectations. This was reasonable.