Peabody Trust (202007657)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007657

Peabody Trust

27 June 2023

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property following damage caused by flooding.
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s associated complaint handling and offer of compensation.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord.
4. In May 2019, a water leak occurred at the resident’s property which caused damage to a number of rooms, particularly the kitchen. The same leak affected several neighbouring properties.
5. The resident complained to the landlord on 17 September 2020. The complaint set out their concerns as:
   1. An ongoing issue with flooding, which the landlord had not taken action to resolve.
   2. The flooding had caused damp and was impacting the resident’s health.
   3. The landlord does not care about or want to investigate the issue.
   4. To resolve their concerns, the resident requested the landlord to find the source of the flooding and repair it. They also asked for repairs to any damage caused by the flooding and compensation for the damage and delays.
6. Having received no response from the landlord, the resident contacted this Service in October 2020 outlining their complaint. The resident explained that damp and mould had been affecting their belongings. They said that other impacted properties had been repaired by the landlord, but not their own. The resident also confirmed the landlord had arranged a decant (temporary move) whilst work was carried out, but it had cancelled this on the day it was arranged to happen. The resident stated they had been living out of boxes since, due to the uncertainty of any planned work.
7. In December 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to state the kitchen could be replaced “like-for-like”, but any alterations would require an occupational therapy report to be completed. It also said that any “luxury goods” would not be covered and a discussion would need to be had between the landlord and resident to agree any such additions.
8. In a response sent the following day, the resident confirmed they would cover any additional costs for “luxury goods”. They said the only alteration they required was moving the oven to prevent issues with the door opening, which had been agreed with the local council. The resident asked for a complaint response and information about who was responsible for requesting the occupational therapy report required for alterations.
9. The resident contacted the landlord again in late December 2020, having not received a response to their earlier emails. The resident confirmed repair appointments had failed in resolving an issue with the downpipe. They asked for answers to their previously asked questions about the occupational therapy report and luxury goods and requested a start date for work to begin to the kitchen.
10. The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 21 December 2020. The response provided the resident with the following information:
    1. The cause of the leak/flooding had been “erosion” of a heating pipes at a neighbouring property.
    2. Remedial work had been set out and agreed in November 2019, which included replacing the kitchen and flooring, and any subsequent redecorating.
    3. A period of “drying out” had been agreed until Christmas 2019.
    4. There had been delays in February and March 2020 and, due to a dispute over the schedule of work, no date had been given.
    5. An appointment had been made for August 2020 but a fitter had not attended until September 2020 due to the resident’s requested alterations and adaptations to the kitchen.
    6. The landlord would attend the property in January 2021 to fix the issue with the downpipe.
    7. The landlord reaffirmed the requirement for an occupational therapy report to make alterations to the kitchen plan. The landlord said the resident would need to cover additional costs for “luxury goods”. It also stated it had been willing to start work “since 2019”.
11. The resident responded to the landlord’s complaint response stating they disagreed with the points it had made. They said that no remedial work had been agreed and that the information in the stage one response was inaccurate. The resident said work had stopped due to the landlord being unable to store their belongings during that period. The resident again reaffirmed they would be covering the cost of “luxury goods” and requested clarity regarding the occupational therapy report.
12. The resident requested the information about the “luxury goods” and report again in February 2021. The landlord responded and said that the report could be requested via the local council and that “luxury goods” costs would need to be covered by the resident and fitted by the landlord.
13. The resident requested their complaint to be escalated to stage two of the complaint process on 12 February 2021. Following another request from the resident, the landlord responded on 19 March 2021 but did not acknowledge or respond to the escalation request.
14. The resident contacted the landlord in August 2021 asking for an update on the planned work. The landlord responded and said it had requested a start date from the contractor who would be completing the work. The landlord also recommended a decant as the “best option” due to the extent of the work and the duration being around four or five weeks. The resident responded to express their dissatisfaction as there had been substantial delays.
15. The landlord contacted the resident in September 2021 and confirmed a start date of 27 September 2021.
16. On 24 September 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm their complaint had been escalated and a response would be issued within ten working days.
17. The resident contacted the landlord on the date work was due to start (27 September 2021). They asked the landlord for a plan for the scheduled work, as they had not received any information. The landlord responded and said that the planned decant had “fallen through” and it was working on securing another property. The resident responded and said the failure to arrange a decant was not appropriate and their belongings were all boxed up. Any property would be suitable for a decant as it would only be used during the day, while work is being carried out.
18. The landlord issued its stage two response on 9 October 2021. It acknowledged the leak had occurred in 2019 and provided the following response:

a.     The leak was repaired and remedial work was identified as being required.

b.     The resident was informed work would not start before Christmas 2019.

c.      A holiday in January 2020, Covid lockdowns and changes to the scheduled work had caused delays.

d.     The resident had been decanted to allow works to be completed.

e.     Complaint handling failures had been identified and staff training would be implemented to prevent further occurrences.

f.        For the delays experienced during the repair process, the complaint handling failures and trouble and inconvenience caused, the landlord offered the resident £550 compensation.

19. The resident rejected the offer and said they were unsure whether the landlord had investigated the source of the leak, to ensure it doesn’t occur again. They stated they were not decanted from their property, no changes to the kitchen plan had been requested and any additional costs were going to be covered by the resident.
20. The resident has confirmed to this Service that work commenced on 6 October 2021 and was completed “around 20 November”. Following completion, the resident identified a number of issues with the work carried out (i.e. the flooring) which were resolved in May 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs following damage caused by flooding

21. The available evidence shows the landlord had been aware of a leak impacting the resident’s property as early as May 2019. Following an investigation and subsequent repair, the landlord identified substantial remedial work was required, including the removal and replacing of the resident’s kitchen.
22. The landlord’s repairs policy describes programmed repairs as “Works that require additional time due to manufacture, complexity or specialist trade. Examples include window replacements, roofing works with scaffolding, damp works, kitchen and bathroom replacements.” The policy states this type of work is to be completed within “60 calendar days”.
23. From the date the required repair was identified in May 2019 until completion in November 2021, it took a total of 904 calendar days. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to take in resolving the resident’s issue. This Service acknowledges there may have been delays throughout the process of planning and arranging the work, but these do not provide a reasonable account for such a substantial delay.
24. The landlord has provided information about its approach to repairs during periods of Covid-19 lockdowns. This provides a list of work which would be considered “essential”. Two of the listed “essential” works are detailed as “Damp caused by building defects i.e. rising damp, damp proof course failure” and “condensation and mould.” Therefore, it would have reasonable of the landlord to consider the required repairs as “essential”, rather than restricted during periods of lockdown, and would have been able to start work sooner to resolve these issues.
25. The landlord also stated the resident had requested adjustments to the planned work, which had caused delays to the start date. However, communication shows the resident confirmed they would be covering additional costs of the adjustments and that the council had approved moving the oven as early as December 2020. The repair work was not completed by the landlord until 11 months after this, demonstrating substantial delays without a reasonable cause.
26. The landlord’s decant policy states “a “non-emergency decant” refers to moves which take place to enable work on the property to be carried out that cannot be done with the resident in occupation.” The policy confirms a non-emergency decant will only take place where “…there are extensive works which cannot be carried out with the tenant(s) or occupant(s) in the property.” The policy also outlines the landlord’s commitment as “we will ensure that the decant process is as easy as possible and will provide tenants and occupants with appropriate support.”
27. The landlord recommended and began the decant process on more than one occasion, requiring the resident to store their belongings to facilitate a temporary move. While the process had been started each time it was never completed and the resident remained in their property whilst repairs were outstanding. During one instance of the decant process, the resident was not informed a property was no longer available until they contacted the landlord on the day it should have been completed. The stage two response also referred to the resident having already been decanted, which was inaccurate. While this Service acknowledges some issues would have been something the landlord did not have control over, it is not satisfied the landlord took appropriate action to provide a solution following the decant issues. This failure to act and poor communication with the resident meant they were left living out of storage boxes for a substantial amount of time, not knowing whether they would be vacating the property to facilitate repair work.
28. The substantial delays experienced by the resident meant they were living in unsuitable conditions for a prolonged period, with exposure to damp and mould which had affected the kitchen to the extent it could not be used. This caused the resident severe distress and inconvenience for a prolonged period.

The associated complaint handling

29. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a two-stage approach to handling “expressions of dissatisfaction”. The policy also provides timescales for responding at each stage of the landlord’s process. These timescales are:
    1. Stage one complaints will be acknowledged within three working days and responded to within ten working days.
    2. Stage two complaints will be acknowledged within three working days and responded to within 15 working days.
30. The resident first complained to the landlord on 17 September 2020. After they did not receive a complaint response, the resident made a formal request for a response on 18 December 2020. The landlord’s stage one response was issued on 21 December 2020. This meant the resident had to wait a total of 67 working days for a response, which demonstrated the landlord’s failure to adhere to its own complaints policy and miss an opportunity to put things right sooner.
31. The resident responded with a further expression of dissatisfaction on 21 December 2020. This should have been enough for the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage two of its process. However, the resident had to request escalation to stage two again on 12 February 2021 and 19 March 2021. The landlord eventually issued its stage two complaint response 204 working days later on 9 October 2021. This was a significant delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, with no reasonable account for why the delays occurred.
32. The landlord failed to follow the process and timescales set out it in its own complaints policy, which meant the resident spent a total of 271 working days waiting for a response to their complaint. The landlord did not provide appropriate acknowledgment at any stage and demonstrated poor communication during a substantial period of time.

The associated offer of compensation

33. This Service has acknowledged the landlord’s actions in attempting to put things right, by offering the resident £550 compensation. The Ombudsman must determine whether this amount is fair and proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation.
34. The Ombudsman has considered whether compensation based on rent is appropriate. The resident was unable to make full use of their property, namely the kitchen, due to the damage caused by a leak/flooding. The landlord’s compensation policy states “For each unusable room, a resident can receive up to the following percentage of the weekly rent as compensation.” The policy confirms the percentage for a kitchen to be 25%. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that a 25% rent rebate is appropriate for 114 weeks. The number of weeks has been calculated by considering the 12 month period leading up to the resident making a complaint and the resident confirming to this Service work was completed around 20 November 2021. The calculation is based on the basic weekly rent set out in the tenancy agreement, which is £78.60 (rounded up to £79 for ease). Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £2,252 (rounded up from £2251.50).
35. This Service has also considered fair compensation for the complaint handling failures identified. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance, published on our website.  The Remedies Guidance suggests that awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has made an error which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has acknowledged failings but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
36. Given the substantial delays experienced by the resident, poor communication from the landlord and a failure to address concerns sooner, this Service has determined £250 to be fair and appropriate compensation.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs following damage caused by flooding.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found maladministration by the landlord in its associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

39. The landlord is to apologise to the resident for any distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to repair the leak/flood damage in a reasonable amount of time and delays in responding to the resident’s complaint.
40. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £2,502, made up of:
    1. £2,252 for handling of repairs following damage caused by flooding, set out by the calculation in paragraph 34.
    2. £250 for the associated complaint handling failures.
41. The landlord should deduct the £550 it offered during the complaint process, if this has already been paid to the resident.
42. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

43. The landlord should run refresher training with all relevant staff on complaint handling, particularly on providing an acknowledgement and full response within the appropriate timescales.
44. This Service identified some miscommunication between the landlord, resident and supplier/contractor during the investigation. The landlord should review its relationship with any external suppliers and contractors to ensure communication is efficient and delays are avoided where possible. Where delays are not avoidable, the landlord should ensure an explanation is provided to the impacted resident.