Peabody Trust (202312953)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with his partner and 5 children. The resident’s household were moved to temporary accommodation while the landlord traced a leak and carried out repairs. The landlord was aware that the resident’s partner and children are neurodivergent and have physical and mental health needs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The leak and associated repairs.
   2. The temporary accommodation.
   3. Reports of damage to personal property.
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the leak and associated repairs.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to personal property.
   4. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found that the landlord:
   1. Did not act quickly enough when the resident reported the leak. It also did not complete repairs with its policy timeframes. However, it took reasonable steps to put matters right by apologising and offering compensation to recognise the impact on the resident.
   2. Acted quickly to move the resident’s family to temporary accommodation. It apologised that delays in tracing the leak and completing repairs extended their stay. However, its did not acknowledge its failures to follow its decant process fully, and that they caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
   3. Failed to follow its compensation policy. It did not investigate liability for the damage and refer the resident to its insurer. This caused delay in resolving the resident’s claim and caused inconvenience.
   4. The landlord did not reply to the complaint at stages 1 and 2 of its process within its complaints policy timescales and in line with the Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) current at the time of the complaint. However, it provided an appropriate level of redress to put things right.

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.

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 looked at

5. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints made before a member’s complaints procedure has been exhausted, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure. After receiving the stage 1 response, the resident raised new issues about the conduct of contractors and the landlord’s failure to keep the property secure during the repairs. He also separately raised issues about outstanding expenses linked to the temporary accommodation. We have not seen evidence that he raised these matters in his stage 1 complaint. The landlord should have the opportunity to respond to those issues through both stages of its complaints procedure before we investigate them. For that reason, we have not considered those issues in this report.
6. The resident said these issues affected his family’s health. He reported that one child experienced serious mental health distress, including a suicide attempt. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

7. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours. It will complete routine repairs within 28 days and major repairs in 60 days. It may prioritise cases involving vulnerable households.
8. The resident first reported the leak on 15 December 2022. The landlord did not attend until the following day, despite logging the repair as an emergency. The resident then stated he had reported the collapse of his ceiling on 18 December 2022. The available evidence records it being reported on 19 December 2022 and an emergency repair raised. The landlord did not attend until the following day when it made the resident’s property safe but the leak could not be traced. The landlord failed to meet its 4 hour timeframe in both of these emergency repairs.
9. A further emergency job was raised on 22 December 2022 following the resident’s report of the leak continuing. Again, the landlord did not attend within 4 hours as per its policy. This will have been particularly inconvenient for the resident as he had by this time been moved to temporary accommodation and had been required to return to the property to allow access.
10. The landlord attended on 23 December 2022 and switched off the resident’s water. However, the leak continued. While we acknowledge that identifying leaks can be complex, the landlord was expected to treat this leak with appropriate urgency. This was particularly important given the leak was uncontained and the resident’s family had been temporarily moved due to it. There is no evidence of further action until a contractor was allocated on 28 December 2022. There were further delays until 5 January 2023, when the contractor and surveyor attended. Access issues to the flat above caused additional delays until 9 January 2023 when the leak was not identified. A leak detection report was recommended. It would have been reasonable in the circumstances to have requested the report sooner.
11. The leak was traced on 16 January 2023, 32 days after the initial report – although this included the holiday period. We understand that leaks within blocks of flats can be complex to trace. However, the overall delay was unreasonable. During that period the resident had to repeatedly chase updates and facilitate access to the property. This caused additional distress and inconvenience.
12. Follow-on works to dry the property out were raised on 17 January 2023. This was appropriate and demonstrated urgency to progress the repairs. Further repair works were raised 10 days later to repair ceilings, flooring, and to redecorate.
13. The landlord’s repairs policy requires a high-quality, resident-focused service. It did not meet this standard. Its limited records indicate it often only provided updates when the resident chased them. It also did not tell the resident when planned works changed, so it did not manage expectations well.
14. The resident’s return, planned for 28 June 2023, was delayed due to outstanding issues, despite the landlord recording the works as complete. Evidence provided by the resident shows poor paintwork, substandard flooring, and materials and waste left in the property. This indicates the works were not completed to a reasonable standard. This delayed the resident’s return home while the landlord carried out further works, which were completed around 25 July 2023. This was 220 calendar days after the leak was reported and 160 days beyond its 60 day timescale for complex repairs. This caused additional frustration, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.
15. Throughout July 2023, the resident asked the landlord to address concerns he had about its repairs. The available evidence does not show that the landlord fully addressed them. Its failure to do so caused the resident time and trouble seeking answers through the complaint process. On 22 August 2023 he asked for his stage 1 complaint to address some of these and new issues about the repairs.
16. On 5 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It relied on access issues being the cause of the delay tracing the source of the leak. It did not acknowledge that its lack of proactivity contributed to that delay. It also did not fully address the resident’s concerns about the quality of repairs or offer a re-inspection. The landlord missed the opportunity to offer further resolution or show it was committed to resolving the matter. This would have caused the resident further distress.
17. At stage 1 of the complaint process, the landlord noted that access issues contributed to delays tracing the leak but did not address that it had not met its emergency timescales after the resident reported the leak. It apologised and offered compensation of £600 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by delays completing repairs. It said this was the maximum allowed under its policy and that it reflected the impact on the resident’s vulnerable household. It did not provide a breakdown of how this sum was calculated. Therefore, for the purposes of this investigation, we have allocated the full £600 to the repair delays. It also offered £112 for the cost of running dehumidifiers as part of the works.
18. On 6 September 2023, the resident asked the landlord to clarify its responses about the workmanship. Its reply did not fully address the issues he raised. It also missed another opportunity to offer a re-inspection. This did not show a clear commitment to resolving the resident’s concerns and caused him time and trouble in escalating the complaint.
19. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accepted its earlier responses about the repairs were inadequate and agreed a re-inspection to address the resident’s concerns. However, the landlord did not then contact the resident to arrange the inspection. While the resident later said he did not want further works and arranged these himself, the landlord should still have followed through with the inspection. Its failure likely caused uncertainty. It denied the resident the opportunity to have his concerns answered. It also meant the landlord missed the opportunity to provide internal feedback about the quality of the works and improve its service. Due to the passage of time and limited records, it is unlikely these concerns can now be meaningfully addressed. Therefore, we have not ordered an inspection.
20. At stage 2 of the complaint process, the landlord did not increase its compensation of £600 because it had already offered the maximum available under its policy for time and trouble. Considering our compensation guidance, and the inconvenience and distress caused by the delay tracing the leak and completing repairs, its offer was proportionate to the failings identified. The landlord has taken steps to resolve the matter for the resident by acknowledging its failings, apologising and providing reasonable compensation for the inconvenience caused.

21. The landlord’s decant policy allows for temporary accommodation where extensive works mean the resident cannot remain in the property. It states the landlord will support residents, take account of vulnerabilities, and keep them informed about progress and any extensions.
22. In this case, the landlord acted appropriately in initially arranging a decant when the property was not suitable for occupation due to damage from the ongoing leak. However, its record keeping was poor. The evidence provided lacks detail about key decisions, communication, and steps taken to secure alternative accommodation. This limits the landlord’s ability to demonstrate it managed the decant effectively.
23. The records show the household was moved to a hotel on 20 December 2022 for 7 nights. There is no evidence the landlord confirmed extensions in advance. The resident says that he had to contact it on or around each check‑out date to clarify arrangements. This pattern continued until the family moved to a temporary property, on around 4 February 2023. This was unreasonable and caused avoidable uncertainty, distress, and inconvenience. The impact was significant as the household was split across rooms over the Christmas period and included young and vulnerable individuals with known health needs.
24. While availability of suitable accommodation may have been limited for a family of this size, the landlord has not shown it took timely or active steps to secure a more suitable option. Its policy provides for hotel use to be limited to 4 weeks and for moves to be kept under review. In this case, the family remained in hotel accommodation for around 6 weeks despite raising concerns about its suitability and the impact of the move, which the resident said led to one child being hospitalised. The landlord took the positive step of offering safeguarding support, which the resident declined. However, the landlord should have taken greater steps to secure suitable accommodation sooner. Its policy states that as well as providing a property from its own stock, it can provide an apartment or arrange accommodation with the local authority. We have seen no evidence it considered these options.
25. The available evidence suggests the landlord’s communication continued to fall short. On 20 February 2023, the resident said updates had largely stopped after the landlord moved his family to temporary accommodation earlier that month. This was unreasonable and caused the resident additional time and trouble in chasing updates about extensions and the likely timescale for returning home.
26. Overall, the landlord acted with appropriate urgency to move the resident’s household to temporary accommodation. However, the resident and his family were kept in hotel accommodation significantly longer than the landlord’s decant policy allows. The landlord has not evidenced it considered all options or acted with appropriate urgency to mitigate this. Its poor communication also left the resident with ongoing uncertainty, causing unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
27. Due to this, we make a finding of maladministration. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay compensation of £300. This is in line with our compensation guidance where there were failings which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has not acknowledged these.

28. The landlord’s insurance policy states that where it is alleged to be at fault for damage to personal belongings, it should first investigate whether its actions or inaction caused or worsened the damage before referring the matter to its insurer. If liability is proven, it should provide appropriate redress.
29. The evidence shows the resident requested compensation for damaged belongings on 13 January 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord referred the resident to his contents insurer. This was a reasonable initial step.
30. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord noted the resident did not have contents insurance and offered £500 towards replacement items. It did not accept liability for the damage. It also did not ask the resident to itemise his losses or explain how it had calculated that figure. While well intentioned, its reasons for reaching that amount are therefore unclear. Under its policy, it should first have considered whether its actions or inaction caused or worsened the damage and, if liability was not accepted, signposted the resident to its insurer. This was a service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in directing the resident to its insurer. This is separate from the £500 already offered towards personal belongings.
31. The landlord’s insurer is best placed to assess liability and the value of damaged items. As the resident has not made a claim, it is not appropriate to order further compensation for damaged property at this stage. We have ordered the landlord to provide the resident with details of how to make a claim to its insurers should he wish to do so.

32. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of this complaint stated it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the complaint being received. Where a resident requested escalation, its policy stated it would issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the request. Any extension should not have exceeded a further 10 days at each stage without good reason. Its policy was in line with the version of the Code in place at that time.
33. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint until 25 July 2023. This was 24 working days after it was raised. The landlord apologised for the delay, which was appropriate. However, it did not define the complaint clearly in line with the Code. This reduced clarity about the issues under investigation and increased the risk of unnecessary escalation.
34. The landlord did not then issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days. On 8 August 2023, we contacted it on the resident’s behalf and asked it to respond by 16 August 2023. Within that period, it agreed an extension with the resident and later extended the response date to 5 September 2023. The Code required landlords to explain extensions clearly. We have not seen evidence that it did so.
35. In its stage 1 complaint response issued on 5 September 2023, the landlord apologised for poor communication and delays in its complaint handling. It also awarded £150 compensation and identified learning to improve its service. This was proportionate and within its compensation policy for moderate service failure, where there was inconvenience and effort in progressing the complaint.
36. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged the complaint within the timescale set out in its policy. It advised that it could not consider new issues raised at stage 1. This was appropriate and in keeping with the Code.
37. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 16 October 2023. This was 34 days after the resident escalated his complaint, significantly beyond its policy timescale. The landlord apologised for this and increased its compensation offer to £250. The landlord’s offer falls within our compensation guidance for a complaint handling failure which had a significant impact on the resident and affected timely resolution of the dispute. We have determined that the landlord’s apology, learning, and offer of compensation represent reasonable redress for the failings in its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord’s record keeping was not always clear. It was not always possible to understand how decisions were made about the repairs and the resident’s move to temporary accommodation. Landlords should keep clear, accurate, and accessible records that provide a reliable audit trail.
39. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

Communication

40. Good communication helps maintain trust and supports a constructive landlord and resident relationship. Landlords should keep residents updated about repairs and explain what action they have taken, or plan to take, to progress matters.