Peabody Trust (202404132)

Background

1. The resident asked the landlord to assess her kitchen. She reported that there were several repairs required. The landlord told her that it would renew her kitchen. The resident complained because the landlord later decided that it would not renew the kitchen and instead, complete repairs. The resident told us that she is classed as disabled and she and her daughter both suffer from various health conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Request for a kitchen renewal, and related repairs.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a kitchen renewal, and related repairs.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to provide an effective repairs service and it had miscommunicated with her and caused delays in completing repairs.
5. It provided its decision regarding the resident’s kitchen renewal request and her request for the landlord to install a carbon filter to her extractor fan.
6. It made a reasonable offer of redress at stage 2 which was proportionate to the impact caused by the failings it had identified in its response.
7. The landlord failed to provide an update to the resident following the complaint procedure and did not complete the actions it agreed in its stage 2 response, which caused further inconvenience and distress to the resident.
8. The landlord acknowledged it failed to adhere to its complaint policy, and it made a proportionate offer of compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused 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.

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.

9. The landlord’s repair policy defines a responsive repair as a maintenance activity where it restores something that is damaged, faulty or worn to a good condition. It also completes planned maintenance activities, normally as part of an annual programme to replace a major component such as a kitchen, bathroom or roof. The landlord says that it expects to replace the kitchen every 20 years dependent on budget restraints and changing priorities. It says it will write to residents to arrange surveys and confirm any works when it identifies improvements.
10. The resident said she disputes the landlord’s decision on two points in her complaint: its decision not to renew the kitchen and its decision not to replace the carbon filter on her extractor fan.

Kitchen renewal

11. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that its contractor had initially told the resident the kitchen would be renewed. The landlord classified kitchen renewals as improvements rather than repairs. It said that, in this case, it should have referred the decision to its investment team as it fell outside its repair responsibilities. We find this position reasonable, as it is consistent with the landlord’s repair policy however we note it did not do so at the time. In its stage 2 response, the landlord agreed to arrange a second opinion, which was reasonable given the resident’s concerns. It also confirmed it would continue to complete any necessary repairs in the kitchen.
12. The landlord had previously signposted the resident to its occupational therapy (OT) team due to difficulties with the layout of the kitchen. Its aids and adaptations policy states that it will consider requests for major adaptations following an occupational therapist’s assessment. We find the landlord acted appropriately in this regard, as arranging an OT assessment would help determine whether the resident required any aids or adaptations.

Carbon filter on the extractor fan

13. In her complaint, the resident said the landlord’s contractor advised her to order a carbon filter for her extractor fan. She alleged that an operative had agreed to install it once it arrived. In her escalation request on 12 December 2023, she said she was still waiting for this installation. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said its contractor had already gone beyond its contractual repair obligations by installing a new oven, hob and fan. It explained that this was done as a goodwill gesture, recognising earlier communication failures.
14. The landlord informed the resident that the carbon filter was her responsibility as it fell under fixtures and fittings. On this basis, it declined to install the filter. In the absence of evidence confirming the conversation between the resident and the contractor, we cannot conclude with any certainty that the landlord agreed to install the carbon filter. Therefore, we find the landlord’s decision to be reasonable because it was in line with its repair policy.

Putting things right

15. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to provide a satisfactory repairs service. It accepted that delays, repeat issues, and poor communication had caused distress and inconvenience, and offered £950 compensation. We find this amount reasonable and proportionate, as it aligns with both the landlord’s compensation policy and our own guidance for a service failure that had a high impact on the resident.
16. The landlord said that it would complete the following actions in the stage 2 response:
    1. It had ordered a new hob and would contact her to fit it when it was delivered.
    2. It would consider re-imbursing her additional outlay once it had received clarity on what this was for in addition to any relevant receipts.
    3. It would arrange a second opinion of the decision to not replace the kitchen.
17. The resident told us she received no further contact following the stage 2 response. She provided evidence that submitted the requested information on 25 February 2024 and chased the landlord on 30 April 2024. The landlord apologised on 28 May 2024 and said it would review her email in the following days. The Complaint Handling Code (The Code) in place at the time said that any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. While the Code was not yet statutory we consider landlords’ complaint responses must result in meaningful action to put matters right. Therefore, we consider it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take action within one month of its stage 2 response.
18.  As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord to provide evidence that it had completed the actions outlined in its stage 2 response. It provided an updated repair history, but this did not show any relevant kitchen works. We therefore find that the landlord acted unreasonably by not carrying out its agreed actions. Given the length of time that has passed, we find this amounts to maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £650 compensation, calculated at £25 per month over a 26‑month period (from March 2024 to May 2026). We have also ordered the landlord to complete the outstanding actions.

19. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint procedure. When a complaint is received, the landlord’s policy says that it will:
    1. Log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. Respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement, and at stage 2 within 20 working days of the request being acknowledged.
    3. Provide the resident with an explanation if an extension of 10 working days is required.
20. The resident submitted her complaint on 17 November 2023 and the landlord initially acknowledged it within 5 working days, which was appropriate. On 5 December 2023, the landlord issued a second acknowledgement. It apologised for the delay and explained that the complaint was assigned to the wrong department. It said that it would respond by 17 December 2023.
21. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 December 2023, within 10 working days of the second acknowledgement and in line with its timescale. Although the initial delay was inappropriate, its subsequent response was timely.
22. On 12 December 2023 the resident said she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. The landlord replied on 14 December 2023, asking her to clarify the reasons for her dissatisfaction. While it was reasonable to seek clarification, its policy does not require residents to provide reasons to escalate a complaint. The landlord should therefore have escalated the complaint at that point. This caused an avoidable delay and may have inconvenienced the resident, who had already explained her concerns.
23. The resident requested a stage 2 escalation on 15 December 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this on 21 December 2023. However, it did not formally acknowledge the complaint until 9 January 2024, when it advised that it would respond within 20 working days of the escalation request. This was inappropriate, as the acknowledgement was issued 15 working days after the escalation request. This contradicted its policy and so failed to provide clarity about when the resident could expect a response.
24. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 February 2024, 43 working days after the initial acknowledgement of the escalation. It apologised for the delays, explained the reasons, and said it was increasing staffing levels to prevent recurrence. It also offered £125 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This is consistent with our compensation guidance where failings have had a significant impact.

Learning

25. The landlord may consider reviewing how it manages complaints following stage 2. Better management post-complaints procedure would ensure that any agreed actions are seen through to completion.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint in a timely manner. It identified learning in its stage 2 to prevent similar delays happening.

Communication

27. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and the resident had to chase the landlord on several occasions.