Peabody Trust (202414024)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202414024 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Peabody Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Leaseholder |
|
Date |
12 May 2026 |
Background
- The resident reported a leak coming through the window of her newborn son’s bedroom. She complained when the landlord failed to fix the leak.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Reports of a leak from a bedroom window and related water damage.
- Associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found:
- Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from a bedroom window and related water damage.
- Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Summary of reasons
Reports of a leak from a bedroom window and related water damage
- There were avoidable delays in refitting the bedroom window. However, the landlord apologised for this and offered compensation in line with its policy and our compensation guidance. It correctly advised the resident to make an insurance claim for any internal water damage.
The landlord’s complaint handling
- There was a delay in the landlord’s stage 1 response. It did not fully consider the cause of the issue which delayed a resolution for the resident. However, it recognised its failings and offered proportionate compensation in line with its policy and our compensation guidance.
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 recommendations |
|
The landlord should pay the resident the total sum of £1,600 which it has offered to pay across all complaint responses if it has not done so already. This recognised genuine elements of service failure. We make the reasonable redress finding on this basis. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
24 November 2023 |
The resident complained to the landlord that the scaffolding erected to determine the source of the leak was affecting her enjoyment of the property. It had not fixed the leak or given a timeline for repairs or for the scaffolding removal. |
|
28 December 2023 |
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the repair delays and its late response. It explained the delay was due to a backlog of variation orders and said it had raised this as a priority. It offered £250 compensation comprising:
|
|
29 December 2023 |
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response because there was no timeline for the repair or the removal of scaffolding. It said it would review the repair timeline and compensation offer. |
|
7 March 2024 |
The landlord increased its stage 1 compensation offer to £430 comprising:
|
|
17 April 2024 |
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. It acknowledged the escalation request and said that there was a 2–week back log of stage 2 complaints. |
|
18 April 2024 |
The resident told the landlord she escalated her complaint because she wanted a second opinion about the cause of the leak. She believed it was due to an incorrectly fitted window. She was also unhappy that the issues raised in her initial complaint were unresolved. |
|
31 May 2024 |
The landlord agreed with the resident to extend the stage 2 response date to 28 June 2024. |
|
6 June 2024 |
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It set out a timeline of events based on a review of all the repair records. It identified that other residents reported leaks from windows in July 2023. It recognised the delay it caused by assuming that the leak in the resident’s property was only coming from the roof. It acknowledged her concerns with the scaffolding but advised that it needed to remain for the roof works. It apologised for its failings and increased its compensation offer to £1,600 comprising:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and asked us to investigate. She wanted it to refit the window, repair the internal damage caused by the leak, and take down the scaffolding. |
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.
|
Complaint |
Reports of a leak from a bedroom window and related water damage |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- On 22 September 2023, the resident reported a leak from the window in her son’s bedroom. A contractor attended on 9 October 2023 to inspect the property. They determined the leak may have been coming from the roof. Under the terms of the lease, it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair the roof of the building. Its repair policy says it will aim to complete roof works requiring scaffolding in 60 calendar days.
- The contractor erected scaffolding on 14 November 2023 to gain access for further inspection. It also raised a variation order on 27 November 2023 to remove paving slabs and stone to trace the source of the leak.
- In its stage 1 response in December 2023, the landlord explained that there was a delay in approving the variation order due to a backlog. It offered £200 compensation for the delay, distress, and inconvenience. Its offer was within the range of awards set out in our compensation guidance for when there has been a failing which adversely affected a resident. However, the variation order was not approved until 12 January 2024 demonstrating a further delay.
- The landlord increased its compensation offer to £330 to reflect the further delay and distress. While it was appropriate to reconsider its offer, it was not proportionate to the delays the resident experienced. Its compensation policy sets out that it can consider amounts for extensive disruption. Given it has been 168 calendar days since the resident reported the window leak, it ought to have considered the household vulnerabilities and a higher award.
- On 3 April 2024, the resident provided quotes to the landlord for repairs to remedy water damage caused by the leak. It directed her to make a claim under her content’s insurance for the damages or, if she felt it was liable, to make a claim via its insurance. This was the correct advice and followed the procedure set out in its compensation policy for leaseholders. It also offered to pay the insurance excess on her claim up to £350 in line with its compensation policy.
- As a part of her stage 2 escalation request, the resident said that she believed the leak was due to an incorrectly fitted window. Under the terms of the lease, the landlord was also responsible for this repair and to claim for it under its insurance as a latent defect. The timeline for replacing windows under its repair policy is 60 calendar days.
- In its stage 2 response, the landlord reviewed its repair records across the estate and found issues with leaks from windows reported from 10 July 2023. It recognised its failure in not assessing the window as a root cause of the leak sooner. It refitted the window on 30 July 2024, 10 months after the resident reported the window leak. This was significantly later than its 60 calendar day timescale.
- The landlord apologised for the delays and its failings. It increased its total compensation offer to £1,400. Its offer showed that it considered the length of time taken to resolve the issue, ongoing delays with repair works to the roof, the impact of the scaffolding, and the fact that the issue was affecting the resident’s baby’s room. Its compensation offer was in line with our compensation guidance for when there has been a failing which adversely affected a resident and had a long-term impact. We have, therefore, found that it offered reasonable redress for its identified failings.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints in 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledgment. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
- The landlord’s complaint policy complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The timescales also comply with the Code.
- We have not seen any evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days. It responded to the stage 1 complaint 7 working days later than its 10-working day timescale. However, it apologised and offered £100 compensation for this delay. Its offer was proportionate to the delay and in line with its policy and our compensation guidance.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request the same day. It responded at stage 2 in 34 working days, which would have been 9 working days later than its 20 working day timescale. However, its policy allows it to extend its stage 2 response by 20 working days, provided it gives the resident an explanation for the delay and a revised timescale for its response. It complied with these requirements by agreeing with the resident on a later due date to give it time to verify if the leak was due to an incorrectly fitted window.
- In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered an additional £100 compensation for its inadequate stage 1 response and a delay in reaching a resolution. This offer was proportionate and in line with its policy and our compensation guidance. We have found that the landlord’s apology and total offer of £200 compensation was reasonable redress for its identified failings.
Learning
- The landlord was pro-active in identifying opportunities for learning. It took a holistic approach to resolving the resident’s complaint that included an investigation of systemic issues across the estate.
- The landlord may wish to review the Complaint Handling Code to ensure it is complying with the requirement to provide formal acknowledgements for all complaints and escalations.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s record keeping was robust in this case.
Communication
- The landlord’s overall communication with the resident was good in this case.