Peabody Trust (202514554)

Background

1. The resident lives in a house. The landlord fitted replacement kitchen units in the property and the resident complained about poor workmanship. She said that she had been without electricity in the upper floor of the property for several days. She also said that the landlord had not answered it’s out of hours emergency repairs line which meant that she had paid for an emergency plumber to resolve a leak. In addition, she said that the contractors had damaged the flooring in her kitchen and bathroom.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A kitchen replacement including conduct of contractor.
   2. A leak under the sink.
   3. Damage to flooring.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen replacement and reports about conduct of the contractor.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a leak under the sink.
6. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damage to flooring.
7. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Kitchen replacement and contractor conduct

8. There was a delay in the landlord completing an inspection of the kitchen. We have seen no evidence that it investigated the resident’s concerns about the contractor’s conduct fully or responded to her regarding this.

Leak under sink

9. The leak caused the resident distress and inconvenience. However, there is a lack of evidence to prove or disprove whether she called the landlord on its out of hours line to report the issue.

Damage to belongings

10. The disclaimer that the landlord relied on did not state that the contractor would not be liable for damage caused to the floor. The landlord agreed that the floor was damaged but offered no redress or signposting to its insurance company.

Complaint handling

11. There were long delays in the complaint handling process, the landlord failed to provide our contact details when extending the deadline and it did not complete a full investigation at stage 1 of the process.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

12. The resident described the effect the situation had on her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments. However, it is beyond our remit to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. However, we have considered whether she experienced any general distress because of any errors by the landlord.
13. The resident expressed dissatisfaction about the contractors’ conduct at her property. We will not form a view on whether the contractor’s actions were appropriate. It is our role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and took proportionate action based on the information available. For example, the landlord would generally be expected to conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings.
14. The resident complained on 14 October 2024 that the kitchen replacement was not up to standard. There is evidence that the landlord inspected the kitchen, which was an appropriate action to take, however this did not take place until 20 December 2024. This delay caused the resident distress and cost her time and trouble chasing a response. This is evidenced by her completing several complaint forms, emailing the landlord, and also visiting an advice centre who contacted it on her behalf.
15. The resident complained that the electricians left the property without power upstairs for several days. There is evidence that the contractor agreed that this had happened but said that they had provided extension leads. It is unclear why the electricians did not return to the property during this time but being left without power upstairs and the contractors lack of communication about the situation, caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience. However, we have seen no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord at the time to ask when the electricians would return. Therefore, the landlord was unaware of the situation.
16. The resident also told the landlord that when the electricians returned to the property, they stood outside for prolonged periods rather than working inside. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord discussed this with the contractor and no records to show that anyone interviewed the electricians to get further information. The resident said that she knew that the contractors were outside because she could see them on her CCTV while she was at work, but we have seen no evidence that the landlord asked to view any footage.
17. The landlord also did not address this fully in its complaint responses. This meant that the resident felt that it did not take her concerns seriously. This caused her distress and undermined the complaint handling process.
18. In summary, there was a delay in the landlord completing an inspection of the kitchen, the resident had no electricity upstairs for several days, apart from that provided by extension leads, and there is no evidence that the landlord investigated her concerns about the electricians fully. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the kitchen replacement and reports about contractor conduct. It offered approximately £200 compensation for this part of the complaint. We do not feel this fully reflected the detriment caused to the resident. We have therefore ordered it to pay her £400 compensation.

19. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it operates an out of hours service outside of its office hours, to which residents can report emergency repairs. It says that it aims to attend within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours.
20. The landlord told us that calls made outside working hours are diverted to an emergency line. This does, however, rely on the caller pressing the appropriate option to be diverted.
21. The resident told the landlord that a pipe under the newly fitted sink had burst on 7 October 2024. She said that this had sprayed scalding hot water around the kitchen and she, her neighbour, and her daughter had therefore tried to call the emergency repairs line multiple times but no-one answered. She also said that she tried to call the out of hours emergency number for the contractor and left a voicemail. However, the contractor told the landlord that they did not receive this. As the resident did not receive a response, she called a private plumber who charged £300 for the call out.
22. In the stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that it had checked a call log and could find no record that the resident had called it that day. We asked it to provide a copy of the log it relied upon in reaching this position but it did not do so. As it used this evidence to respond to the resident’s complaint, the landlord should have kept a copy of it. This record keeping failure means that we are unable to verify the information and complete a full investigation.
23. We asked the resident to provide screen shots from her phone to show her attempts to call the landlord’s number on the 7 October 2024. However, she had not provided them at the time this report was finalised. Therefore, due to the lack of evidence to support either version of events it is impossible to prove or disprove whether the resident called the landlord that day.
24. Notwithstanding this,  the landlord acknowledged that there had been a leak under the sink and that this had caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It accepted liability and offered approximately £50 compensation for this. However, we do not feel that this reflects the distress and inconvenience caused. We have therefore ordered it to pay £150 compensation to the resident.

25. The resident told the landlord that the contractor had ripped the lino in her bathroom while moving white goods. She also said that the contractor had removed the protective covering from the kitchen floor leaving a chip in the laminate flooring, which she had put down previously.
26. There is evidence that the landlord contacted the contractor to ask them about this. This was an appropriate action to take. The contractor told the landlord that the resident had signed a disclaimer prior to it fitting the kitchen to say that she did not want it to replace the kitchen floor. However, this disclaimer does not include any information regarding the contractor not being liable for any damage caused to the existing floor during the process. Therefore, we have seen no evidence that the contractor or landlord told the resident that they would not be held responsible for this.
27. An internal email dated 3 January 2025 said that, during its visit on 20 December 2024, the landlord confirmed that they could see that the flooring had been damaged. We have seen evidence that the contractor offered to replace the flooring prior to fitting the new kitchen but we have seen no evidence that it offered to do this again afterwards.
28. The landlord is responsible for the actions of a contractor that is carrying out work on its behalf. In this case if the landlord accepted that it may have been at fault it should have either offered a form of compensation or provided the resident with information about how she could make a claim on its, or the contractors insurance. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so. This failure meant that the resident was left with damaged flooring and no information on how to rectify the situation or secure redress, and this caused her further distress and inconvenience.
29. In summary, the disclaimer that the resident signed did not mention that she took responsibility for the floor if it was damaged. As such liability for any damages caused was not in any way affected by the resident signing a document to confirm that she did not want a new flooring installed. The landlord agreed that the floor was damaged but offered no redress to the resident and did not signpost her to its insurance company. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the residents reports of damaged flooring.

30. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will acknowledge new complaints within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. It says that it will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 20 working days of acknowledgement. It says that if it needs more time, it will provide an explanation giving a clear timeframe for when the response will be received but this should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. In instances where it requires an extension beyond the additional 10 days, it says it will provide residents with our contact details so they can seek advice on the reasonableness of its actions.
31. In this case the landlord took 22 working days to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint and a further 47 working days to provide a response. It then took 9 working days to acknowledge receipt of the stage 2 escalation and a further 69 working days to provide a response. These lengthy and unacceptable delays, which were not in line with its complaints policy, meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution. This caused her distress and inconvenience and delayed her access to an investigation by this Service. It also cost her avoidable time and trouble because she completed multiple complaint forms and repeatedly chased the landlord for a response.
32. The landlord’s acknowledgement of the stage 1 complaint was so delayed that the deadline to provide a full response had already passed. It did not provide the resident with our contact details and there is also no evidence that it provided them when it called the resident to extend the deadline again. This failure to follow its policy meant that it did not make the resident aware of how to get further independent advice, which caused further distress.
33. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that at each stage of the complaints process, complaint handlers must consider all relevant information and evidence carefully.
34. However, in this case, despite the lengthy delay in providing the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord did not check the call log as part of its investigation at stage 1. This error and failure to follow the Code meant that the stage 1 complaint response was neither adequately thorough or complete. The landlord said that it would update her regarding the outcome of checking the log, however we have seen no evidence that it did so. This cost the resident further time and trouble escalating the complaint.
35. Due to the lengthy delays, failure to provide our contact details, and failure to complete a full investigation at stage 1 of the process there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It offered the resident £100 for the time and trouble caused by the delays and identified that it would review its processes. However, we do not feel that this reflects the time, trouble, and distress caused. Therefore, we have ordered it to pay the resident £150 to reflect this.

Learning

36. The landlord should ensure that waiver forms used by contractors contain all relevant information.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. The landlord failed to provide the call log which was a record keeping failure.

Communication

38. The landlord should ensure that complaint handlers update residents when responses will be delayed and make sure that they provide our contact details.