Peabody Trust (201904945)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201904945

Peabody Trust

26 March 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint refers to the landlord’s:
1. handling of proposed upgrades to the resident’s property,
2. complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a block owned and managed by the landlord.
The resident maintains her position that the bathroom was due to be renovated in 2016-17 following a stock condition survey completed in 2015. This was part of the landlord’s planned programme of works and has not been carried out to date.
The resident has provided evidence that she contacted the landlord on 3 August 2017 to confirm that the work to her new bathroom would begin on 4 September 2017 as previously agreed as she had not received an update. There is no further evidence of any communication related to this work in response.
The resident emailed the landlord to appeal her proposed rent increase on 1 June 2018 as her bathroom had not been renovated and she felt she was being treated unfairly. The rent appeal was successful, and the landlord cancelled the rent increase due on 1 July 2018.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 June 2018 and requested an update in relation to the renovation works to her bathroom. She advised that she was disappointed that she had not received any communication related to this and confirmed that hers was the only flat within the block not to have their bathroom renovated. The resident has advised that she did not receive a response to this email.
The resident raised her concerns related to her bathroom renovation not being completed with her resident’s committee in October 2018. The resident confirmed that she had completed paperwork and chosen the flooring and paint colour for her new bathroom in 2016 but had received no updates in relation to her bathroom renovation. The committee confirmed that this matter had been discussed at a meeting although it noted that the bathroom renovation works had been reported as completed by the landlord in August 2018. The committee forwarded her concerns to the landlord on 29 October 2018.
The resident emailed the contractors responsible for the renovation work on 1 November 2018 and asked for an update as to when her bathroom would be renovated and why her property had been missed. She asked the contractors to provide a timescale or recommencement date for the programmed work to her property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 November 2018 and advised that she was dissatisfied with the lack of communication in regard to the planned works programme and her bathroom renovation. She confirmed that the bathrooms of other flats in her block had been renovated but hers had not. She advised that she had been waiting for 14 months and the contractors appeared to have moved on to other renovation works. She asked the landlord to respond in line with its formal complaints process and complete a full investigation of the matter.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 21 November 2018 and asked for her complaint to be escalated. She advised that she had not received any answers regarding her bathroom renovation. She expressed dissatisfaction that she had raised this on a number of occasions but had not received a response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 May 2019 to appeal her rent increase as her bathroom renovation had not taken place since 2016–17. The landlord responded on 6 June 2019 and advised that its records confirmed that the works had been completed and that the rent increase due 1 July 2019 would stand.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 June 2019 and advised that since her last rent appeal in 2018, no renovation work had been completed at her property. She attached photos of her bathroom. She asked the landlord to provide information as to when this work had been reported as completed. She advised that she had raised this issue on multiple occasions and had received no response.
On 5 July 2019 the landlord confirmed that it had decided to cancel the resident’s rent increase due on 1 July 2019. It confirmed that it had forwarded the resident’s further concerns related to her bathroom renovation to another department. It confirmed that the resident could raise a further query or complaint through its website.
The landlord’s records show that the resident raised a complaint on 19 July 2019. The details of this complaint have not been provided to this Service.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 August 2019 following the complaint she had raised on 19 July 2019. It asked the resident to forward her main concerns and advised that it would arrange for a stock condition survey to take place. It explained that the purpose of the survey was to gather information about the condition of the property which would inform future programmes of work. It advised that the surveyor would check the condition of her bathroom, kitchen, boiler, and electrics.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 September 2019 and advised that she remained dissatisfied that the outstanding renovation work to her bathroom had not been completed since 2017. She confirmed that the bathrooms in the other flats in her block had been renovated and hers was the only bathroom which had not. She asked why the landlord had appointed contractors who had failed to act on surveys and reports which had been carried out. She advised that she had been referred to a number of different individuals and had invested time and trouble to pursue the improvement works to her property. She asked the landlord to escalate her complaint and confirm when her property would be due to have the renovation works carried out.
The landlord responded on 20 September 2019 and advised that it wanted to book a survey of the internal property as it did not have any data for the kitchen, bathroom, boiler, or electrics and needed to identify any issues prior to carrying out any work.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 September 2019 and expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not addressed her concerns, and therefore she asked the landlord to provide a detailed response to the questions she had raised. She asked why the landlord had appointed contractors who had failed to act on surveys, reports, and information gained since 2016-17. She asked the landlord to obtain all surveys which had been completed at the property. She raised her concerns related to the number of different individuals she had needed to contact. She did not accept that the landlord had no data when she had been present at the property when the surveys and reports were completed. She requested for her complaint to be escalated to a senior manager.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 March 2020 and asked the landlord to update her on the status of her complaint. She attached evidence to assist the landlord in locating the stock condition survey completed in 2015.
The landlord responded on 5 March 2020 and said that the resident’s case had been closed following no response to its previous communication. It confirmed that it wished to move the resident’s complaint forward and asked the resident to provide a date which would be suitable for a survey to take place.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 March 2020 and expressed dissatisfaction that her complaint had been closed. She advised that she had received limited and selective responses and asked the landlord to provide a full response in line with its complaint procedure.
The landlord responded on the same day and confirmed that it had passed the resident’s concerns related to her bathroom in September 2019 to another member of staff. It confirmed that it was attempting to move the works forward by adding her bathroom to a future planned works programme or assigning her case to a specialist works team. It advised that it would need to arrange a survey which could then be investigated. It could not provide any updates on action it would take as it did not have records of the internals of the resident’s property.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 April 2020 following a phone call. It explained that in order to move the case forward it needed to complete a survey of the property which the resident had refused. The landlord confirmed that the resident had advised that she just wished to know why her complaint case had been closed and advised that her property had been surveyed in 2015. It confirmed that it would add these notes to its system to keep a record of the attempts it had made to resolve the matter.
On 16 April 2020 the resident emailed the landlord saying that she was still pursuing answers to her questions as to what had gone wrong since January 2015 and the landlord had not provided a suitable response. She advised that she had not refused the survey of her property but was still awaiting answers which had not been addressed. She asked why she had not been informed that her complaint had been closed and asked the landlord to confirm what stage her complaint was. She also asked the landlord why it had appointed contractors who failed to act on surveys completed at the property since 2015 and that her flat was the only property to not have this work completed within her block. She also raised her concerns about the staff member who had been involved in her case and advised that she had received poor communication and discrimination from this staff member. She confirmed that she was unhappy that the landlord was ‘pushing ahead’ rather than taking into account what had happened.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 8 June 2020 and advised the following:
1. It acknowledged that the resident had initially raised her complaint on 19 June 2019 and apologised that her desired outcome had not been reached so far.
2. It understood that the resident was unhappy that the renovation work to her bathroom was not completed in 2017 and that the landlord would need to carry out a stock condition survey to determine the condition of her bathroom, kitchen, and electrics in the resident’s property. It apologised that it had not clearly communicated that any dates given for renewals were subject to change at the time. It advised that all communication sent to residents now explicitly stated that these dates were subject to change.
3. It acknowledged that the resident had advised that a survey had already been completed. It confirmed that it had checked its system and that it had no data for the condition of her bathroom. In view of the lack of data it explained that it would need to carry out a survey; following this, it would be able to determine a date for the renewal of the resident’s bathroom.
4. It advised that it would learn from the resident’s complaint and improve its services in the future. It advised that it could schedule an appointment which suited the resident once it was safe for its contractors to attend the property (following the lifting of restrictions in place because of Covid-19). It advised the resident that if she remained dissatisfied with its response, she could contact the landlord with her further concerns.
The resident responded on 18 June 2020 and asked for her complaint to be escalated for the following reasons:
1. She explained that the landlord had failed to address what had gone wrong since January 2015. She confirmed that a stock condition survey had been completed on 15 January 2015. She was not sure whether this survey had been located or mislaid and confirmed that her bathroom renewal remained outstanding.
2. She asked whether the landlord had the January 2015 survey and whether it held any other surveys or reports on her property. She confirmed that the other flats in her block had their renovations completed in June and July 2017 and hers had not been addressed.
3. She advised that she had attempted to raise her concerns on a number of occasions and that she was still pursuing this matter as she did not feel that she had received sufficient answers as to what went wrong and why her renovation had not been completed.
The landlord sent an acknowledgement email to the resident on 30 June 2020 and confirmed that her complaint had been escalated to stage two of its process. The landlord asked the resident to provide the specific requirements she was looking for as a resolution and advised that she should receive a response by 21 July 2020.
The resident sent a further email on 13 July 2020 and provided the landlord with her ideal outcome:
1. She remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not reviewed all communication related to both of her previous complaints had not been reviewed.
2. She asked the landlord to carry out a fact-finding investigation into the planned programme of works for kitchens and bathrooms in her block and other local blocks since 2014-15. She also asked the landlord to determine what went wrong and why her property was not renovated when a stock condition survey and reports had been completed.
3. She asked the landlord to include all emails and images she had sent to the landlord in relation to her two previous complaints and provide her the opportunity to challenge and provide further evidence to support this complaint.
4. She asked the landlord to acknowledge and recognise what had happened and put this right, including the substantial delays in the work being fully undertaken and the time and trouble in pursuing this complaint. She also confirmed that she wanted the landlord to approve an action plan for the bathroom renewal and did not want this to be managed by the member of staff previously involved.
5. She requested that the landlord arranged for an ongoing investigation into the outstanding planned programme works, including kitchens and bathrooms, mould, front doors, and windows.
6. She asked the landlord to compensate her for the failure in services, the time and delay in completing the bathroom renewal, communication failings, the distress and inconvenience caused, and the impact on her mental and physical wellbeing.
The landlord emailed the resident on 21 June 2020 and advised that due to the number of issues raised it required further time to complete its review. It confirmed that the resident should receive its response by 7 August 2020.
On 7 August 2020 the landlord emailed the resident and advised that it needed to extend its deadline. It confirmed that the resident should receive its response by 11 August 2020.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 11 August 2020 and explained the following:
1. It acknowledged that there had been delays and uncertainty which had caused the resident inconvenience and time and trouble pursuing this matter. The landlord apologised and advised that it was disappointed that the resident’s complaint had not been responded to and resolved as quickly as possible.
2. It advised that when the resident raised her complaint on 19 July 2019, this was treated as a query rather than a formal complaint. The landlord apologised that this was not allocated correctly, which led to the responses the resident received at this time not being in line with its complaint process.
3. In September 2019 a member of staff had advised the resident that her queries in relation to why the bathroom renovation work had not been carried out previously had been passed on, and that a survey needed to be carried out. At this point the case had been closed which should not have happened unless agreed with the resident. The landlord apologised that the resident was not informed that the case had been closed at this stage. It advised that this was because it had not received a response. The landlord confirmed that this action was carried out incorrectly.
4. The landlord acknowledged that the resident wished to escalate her complaint further as it had not provided detailed responses to her questions in its previous correspondence. It noted that the issues it had raised so far related to a failure in the allocation of the original complaint and then a failure to provide a full and comprehensive stage one response and follow the complaints process. It noted that it had attempted to find a resolution to the complaint which would be aided by a new survey, although this did not answer the resident’s questions.
5. The landlord advised that it would not be able to provide the resident with detailed records of the planned maintenance at all properties in her area as it could not provide information about other properties without permission. It advised that it did not have a great amount of information going back to 2015. Any information it did have was not relevant to the resident’s case specifically.
6. It advised that it had updated its systems over the last two to three years and it now carried out stock condition surveys every four to five years; it then used the data to plan works required. It explained that in the resident’s case, the survey, which was carried out in 2015, was completed by an external contractor and was never recorded on the landlord’s system. This meant that the bathroom renovation work was not correctly scheduled. It advised that its contractor would have been given the opportunity to report its findings at this time, but the landlord did not have any evidence to suggest it had done this. The landlord advised that its process had changed; it now completed all stock condition surveys in-house and had trained staff to carry these out.
7. The landlord advised that it could not confirm whether it may have carried out the work in 2017, but this was probable considering that other properties had bathroom renovations completed. It apologised that the information had not been provided to its team and that it had not communicated with the resident regarding this matter. It advised that it would not look to compensate the resident for the three-year delay in completing the renovation work as it did not have confirmation that this work was due to be carried out and any repair issues during this time would have been addressed over the past three years accordingly.
8. The landlord confirmed that a survey would need to take place as it would need to act on current information. It confirmed that once the survey had been completed, the condition and age of the resident’s bathroom would be assessed and any works that were needed would be carried out. It advised that any works would be accompanied with a plan of works and scheduled taking into account the resident’s personal circumstances. It could not guarantee that bathrooms would be renewed every 20 years as the bathroom could be in immaculate condition, but it would continue to check the bathroom every few years to see how it was weathering.
9. The landlord advised that it needed to arrange for a stock condition survey to take place and asked the resident to confirm her availability. In recognition of the delays and service failure the resident had received, the landlord offered £350 compensation, comprised of £200 for the time and trouble she had spent pursuing this matter caused by the landlord’s failure to act in line with its processes, and £150 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
10. The landlord apologised for the service the resident had received and that she had to chase this matter over a long period. The landlord acknowledged that it should have acted faster to deal with the resident’s complaint and should have provided better communication and complaint handling along the way.

Assessment and findings

The resident has reported to the Ombudsman, and the landlord, that the issues that form the substance of her complaint have resulted in a deterioration in her health. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between these matters and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of upgrades to the resident’s property.

In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord would be responsible for keeping the bathroom in good repair. Any repair issues related to the bathroom would therefore be handled in line with the landlord’s repair policy. In line with the Decent Homes Standard, the landlord would also be responsible for ensuring that the property has reasonably modern facilities and services, including renewing the bathroom as part of a major works programme when it is due. The landlord’s website confirms that it undertakes cyclical home improvement works and undertakes surveys to establish what work should be done at its residents’ properties. It notes that based on the condition of the property a resident’s bathroom may be replaced if it is more than 40 years old.
The resident has maintained her position that her bathroom was due to be renovated in 2016–17 following a stock condition survey completed in 2015. The landlord has confirmed that it did not have records dating back to this time and has apologised that the survey, carried out by an external contractor, had not been provided for the work to go ahead at this stage. The landlord has advised that it did not have confirmation that this work was due to go ahead, although it was probable since the resident’s neighbours had their bathrooms renovated. Clearly the resident was under the impression that her bathroom was due to be renovated and has spent time and trouble pursuing this matter for a significant amount of time with little communication from the landlord. The landlord has confirmed that this stock condition survey process has now been moved in-house. It has therefore taken appropriate steps to ensure that surveys are recorded correctly in the future and prevent these issues reoccurring.
In this case, as the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. The landlord would not be expected to keep detailed records dating back to 2015 and it is difficult for either the landlord or the Ombudsman to investigate what went wrong during this period and why the bathroom renovation was not completed. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord could not provide a detailed response to the resident’s question regarding what went wrong during this period due to a lack of information. The landlord has also taken this opportunity to provide further information as to what it believes to have happened.
It is not disputed that the bathroom renovation has not been completed at the resident’s property. Following the resident’s concerns that this had not been done, it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to progress this work. It is reasonable that the landlord would need to complete another stock condition survey as, firstly, the landlord did not have a record of the previous survey and, secondly, the landlord would need to rely on a report of the up-to-date condition of the property before establishing what work should be done.
The resident has expressed concern that the landlord has not clarified what its intended actions are following the completion of the stock condition survey and how soon after the survey she should expect works to take place. Ultimately, the landlord would need to investigate the survey before establishing what works it would carry out. The landlord has confirmed that it could not guarantee that the bathroom would be fully renovated because, even if a bathroom had been in place for 20 years, it may be in good condition and not need a renovation. It is understandable given the length of time and uncertainty associated with the bathroom renovation that the resident has requested specific answers as to when her bathroom would be renovated. In view of this, it is recommended that the landlord provides an update to the resident in relation to its expected timescales for providing a plan of action, and the completion of any related works following the completion of the survey for further clarity.
It is understood that the resident has spent considerable time and trouble pursuing this matter, which is likely to have been distressing, although there is no evidence to suggest that the resident’s bathroom had been in need of repair during this period. The landlord acted unreasonably in not communicating clearly with the resident at all stages and in not providing updates on the status of her bathroom renovation.
The landlord has acknowledged that the resident had been pursuing this matter for a considerable length of time and that it had failed to communicate with her clearly on a number of occasions in line with its processes. In view of the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing this matter, the landlord apologised and offered £200 compensation.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman considers whether the redress offered by the landlord (an acknowledgment of its error, an apology, arranging for a new survey to take place and a compensation payment of £200) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident. It put things right by arranging for a new survey to take place.
The landlord also offered £200 compensation for the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing this matter. This is in line with the range of compensation awards set out in the landlord’s compensation policy for cases where a high effort was needed to resolve the issue but with relatively moderate disruption to the resident.
The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. The landlord demonstrated that it learnt from outcomes by moving its surveying process inhouse in order to prevent surveys of properties not being recorded correctly.
For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. It confirms that if it received an expression of dissatisfaction, it would look to see if could resolve the matter without the need to record a formal complaint. If an informal resolution could not be reached, this could be raised and handled under the landlord’s formal complaints procedure.
The complaint policy confirms that it has a two-stage formal complaint process. At stage one, the resident should be contacted within three working days and a formal complaint response should be provided within a further ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied the complaint can be escalated to stage two of the process. At stage two the landlord should provide a formal response within 15 working days. If there is likely to be a delay in providing a response at any stage, the landlord should contact the resident and inform them of the expected response time.
The resident has actively pursued her dissatisfaction about her bathroom renovations with the landlord since 2017; it is clear that the resident was not provided with a response under the landlord’s formal complaint process or otherwise prior to the landlord raising her formal complaint in April 2020. The landlord would have been expected to respond to the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction and attempt to resolve the matter, but there is no evidence to suggest it had done so and the landlord has therefore not acted in line with its policies.
The resident confirmed that she wished to raise a formal complaint on 13 November 2018, 21 November 2018, and in 2019. On these occasions, the landlord would have been expected to address the resident’s request for a formal complaint to be raised in line with its formal complaints process. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised that the resident’s complaint in July 2019 had been handled as a query rather than a formal complaint. It also noted that this query was closed in September 2019 following no response from the resident. It has advised that this was not the correct process to follow and that it should have attempted to contact the resident again to confirm her issue was resolved.
The landlord has also utilised the complaints procedure to identify issues related to its stage one response on 8 June 2020. The purpose of stage two, or the review stage, is to identify issues with the way the complaint had been handled at stage one, which the landlord has successfully identified. The landlord has acknowledged that its stage one response did not answer the resident’s questions satisfactorily and it has apologised for its failure to provide a full and comprehensive stage one response.
The landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint. It has recognised a failure in the allocation of the original complaint and then a failure to provide a comprehensive response at stage one. The landlord has apologised and offered £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused as a result of its complaint handling. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which recognises amounts of this level to be appropriate for extensive failure to follow the complaint policy, failure to investigate a complaint correctly and cause significant impact on resident.
The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. Whilst the landlord has not fully acknowledged its failure to address the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint in 2018, the overall compensation amount remains reasonable, taking into account the error in communication early on. It is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training for front-line staff to ensure that expressions of dissatisfaction are resolved and raised as formal complaints where appropriate in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of the resident’s bathroom renovation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of the associated complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

It is not disputed that the resident has spent considerable time and trouble pursuing a resolution to her concerns in relation to her bathroom renovation. The landlord could not reasonably provide answers to the resident with respect of what went ‘wrong’ in 2015 due to a lack of information in view of the length of time which had passed. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to arrange for a new survey to be completed so that work to the resident’s bathroom can be completed. It is reasonable that the landlord could not provide a detailed plan of action at this stage as the survey had not been completed. The landlord has offered £200 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble spent by the resident which is proportionate to the level of inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The landlord has acknowledged its failure to address the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint at an earlier stage and has used the complaint’s process to identify its failure to provide a comprehensive response at stage one. The landlord has apologised for its service failures in respect of its complaint handling and offered £150 compensation in line with its compensation policy.

Recommendations

It is recommended that within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord:
1. pays the resident £350 as previously offered if it has not already done so, as the finding of sufficient redress has been made on that basis.
2. provides an update to the resident in relation to her bathroom renovation. This should include its expected timescales for providing a plan of action, and the expected timescales for any related works following the completion of the survey.
3. reviews its complaints process to see if staff training for front-line staff is required to ensure that expressions of dissatisfaction are resolved and raised as formal complaints where appropriate, in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.