Peabody Trust (202007888)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007888

Peabody Trust

19 November 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

  1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a burst water pipe.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 17 January 2021 the water pipe in the resident’s boiler burst. She called the fire brigade who attended and made the property safe. The landlord sent an engineer and electrician on 18 January. It is unclear what work they carried out during this visit.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 18 January 2021. She said she reported the incident to its out of hours team (it is unclear when exactly) who advised an emergency electrician and engineer would attend within four hours. She said an engineer attended at 2pm but then left as he said he was “not qualified for the job”. She said an electrician attended at 6pm, and “did half of his job”. She said she then called the landlord who said an engineer would call her but did not. She said her flat was unliveable, had no water, and the electrics were unsafe due to the water. She asked whether she would be compensated for her damaged belongings. She asked the landlord to provide a plan of action and asked whether it would move her elsewhere.
  4. The landlord decanted (temporarily moved) the resident on 19 January 2021. The landlord’s records show its contractors attended on 21, 26 January, and 2 February to complete follow–on work including replacing parts of the boiler, and hoovering water from the carpets. It placed dehumidifiers in the property on 22 January and removed them on 12 February. On 15 February contractors “took up section of carpet to bedroom to check underneath and found that underlay and concrete [were] damp”. They noted they needed to remove all flooring and skirting in the property to allow it to dry out. Contractors removed the carpet and underlay in the bedroom, and all the vinyl flooring in the rest of the property on 26 February 2021.
  5. On 17 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to ask when the flooring work would be completed. She also asked it to confirm how much longer she would be decanted for.
  6. The landlord responded on 3 March 2021. It confirmed that the flat was inhabitable. It said its contractors would being to carry out mould treatment, skirting replacement, and decorating work that day. It said it would ensure all flooring was dry before it began flooring work. It said due to its policy, it was unable to fit an underlay or extra thick vinyl. It said it would attempt to make good any damage but if it was unable to exactly match existing decoration, it would not offer additional compensation for this. It said it would replace the flooring (it did not specify which) with similar vinyl to that which was previously there. It said it once it had completed all the necessary repairs, and the resident returned home, it would issue its formal stage one response to her complaint. It advised the resident to make a claim on her home contents insurance for damages to personal possessions. It reiterated that once it had issued its stage one complaint response, the resident could escalate the matter if she remained dissatisfied.
  7. The landlord’s records show contractors attended the property on 3 March 2021. They removed the skirting boards from the bedroom and hallway. They reattended on 5 March 2021 to fit the new skirting boards. They also applied anti mould paint to the bedroom walls. On 8 March 2021 they painted the bedroom walls.
  8. On 17 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to ask for an update regarding the progress of works. She said it appeared that all work had stopped. The concrete was now dry and flooring works could commence. She said the landlord had said all work regarding replacing the flooring would be” like for like”. She said she hoped the landlord would replace her bedroom carpet with one from the same retailer and brand.
  9. On 18 March 2021 the landlord updated the resident regarding the repairs. It provided a link to its website which set out its repair responsibilities. It explained that residents were responsible for maintaining all floor coverings except for the bathroom and kitchen vinyl flooring. It explained that water damage to other floor coverings (aside from the kitchen and bathroom), the resident’s belongings, or furniture was something which would need to be addressed under the resident’s home contents insurance. It acknowledged that the resident did not have this insurance in place. However, it said its compensation policy was not intended to replace or compensate a resident for a lack of insurance. It advised her how she could pursue a claim with its liability insurers if she felt it had acted negligently. It reiterated that once it completed the repairs, it would issue its formal stage one response to her complaint.
  10. The landlord’s contractors advised the resident on 9 April 2021 that they would attend on 26 and 27 April 2021 to complete flooring work.
  11. On 14 April 2021 the landlord advised the resident that she could return home as the property was now habitable. It said the outstanding repair to her flooring could be carried out whilst she was there. The resident disputed the flat was habitable as there was no flooring. It is understood that her decant ended on 23 April 2021, but this is not clear from the records provided by the landlord.
  12. The landlord’s records show on 26 April 2021 its contractors collected the flooring and began laying it in the hallway. On 27 April they completed laying the kitchen, and hallway flooring.
  13. The landlord issued its formal stage one complaint response on 5 May 2021. It said it attended on 18 January 2021 and noted what follow–on work was required. It explained that it had since completed work such as fitting new skirting in the hallway and applying anti-mould paint to the bedroom walls. It apologised for any confusion caused concerning the flooring. It clarified that residents were responsible for floor coverings in their property, except vinyl flooring in the bathroom and kitchen. It offered the resident £300 compensation for her time, trouble and inconvenience, and £96 for the cost of additional electricity use whilst the de-humidifiers were in place from 22 January to 15 February 2021. It said it usually advised residents to claim on their contents insurance for damage to their personal belongings. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  14. Following contact from the resident, this Service asked the landlord on 25 May 2021 to escalate her complaint. We explained she was dissatisfied with the level of compensation it had offered. We said she wanted it to revise its offer and include reimbursement for increased utility costs, and for her damaged carpets and flooring.
  15. On 3 June 2021 the landlord advised the resident it had received her stage two complaint. It said it would allocate her complaint to a member of its team within the next seven to ten working days. On 23 June the landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
  16. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 29 June 2021. It explained that it usually offered compensation when it had failed to complete a repair within a reasonable time, not to because an incident had occurred. It said the cause of the leak was unforeseeable so it could not compensate the resident for the leak happening. It said before it made good on the damages, it had to wait until her home had dried. It explained that in line with its compensation policy, it could offer £2 a day per dehumidifier for the extra electricity these used. It said as a goodwill gesture it would pay for the increased electricity costs whilst the resident was decanted if she provided evidence of these costs. It said it had previously explained that it was not responsible for replacing the carpets in the resident’s bedroom and living room. It had to remove her carpets so it could carry out repair work. Its compensation policy did not allow for it to replace carpets as residents were expected to claim for this on their contents insurance. If it did replace her carpets, it would be unfair towards other residents who did have contents insurance in place. It acknowledged that there was a delay from when the dehumidifiers were no longer required to when the making good work began. The landlord explained that the delay was as a result of it needing to source replacement flooring. It offered the resident an additional £200 compensation for her time and trouble, and £50 for its delay escalating her complaint (£646 in total).
  17. The landlord emailed this Service on 27 September 2021. It said the dispute regarding the carpet and who should replace it was still ongoing.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out it will not offer compensation when a claim can be made on the resident’s home contents insurance. It expects residents to take out home contents insurance to protect them against accidental damage. Its policy is not intended to replace or compensate for a resident’s lack of insurance. It can offer up to £400 for time trouble and inconvenience when the resident has experienced an extensive disruption. It can offer up to £100 for poor complaint handling. It will pay £2 per day per dehumidifier for the costs of any additional electricity. It will offer compensation once all remedial work is complete.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to attend to and complete emergency repairs (for example total loss of power) within four hours. It will complete non-urgent repairs to rectify a fault within 28 calendar days.
  3.  In line with the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for boiler repairs. It is also responsible for repairing and replacing floorboards, and the kitchen and bathroom flooring. Residents are responsible for flooring in other rooms. 
  4. The landlord’s website explains that it will acknowledge a stage one complaint within three working days and provide its response within ten working days. It will formally acknowledge and advise the resident within three working days who is handling their stage two complaint and respond within 15 working days.
  5. The resident’s boiler’s water pipe burst on 17 January 2021. The fire brigade attended and made the property safe. The landlord’s records show it attended the following day, but it is unclear what work it did during this visit. It attended again on 21 January 2021 and began follow on work to remedy the damages. Given that the fire brigade had already attended to make the property safe, the landlord would not have been expected to attend within its target emergency timeframe. However, it is acknowledged that whist the outstanding repairs were not an emergency, they needed to be attended to urgently and a timescale of 28 days would not be appropriate in this situation, to assess the damage and start repairs. Therefore, the acted reasonably and in accordance with its policy for non– urgent repairs by attending on 19 and 21 January 2021.
  6. The landlord continued to carry out remedial work in the resident’s property whilst she was decanted. Whilst undoubtedly necessary, this follow-on work would not be considered to be urgent as the resident was able to stay in another property during the repairs. It is unclear when exactly she returned home, but it is understood that it was around 23 April 2021. The resident was therefore decanted for at least three months. The landlord explained in its stage two complaint response that the reason the decant went on for three months was as it needed to let the floor dry before it could complete the remedial work. It acknowledged that there was a period of time in which it did not carry out any work. It explained that this was due to the time taken to source the replacement flooring. It apologised for its shortcoming, and in total offered the resident £500 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience caused by this delay.
  7. The landlord used its discretion and exceeded what its policy deemed as suitable compensation for a high level of distress and inconvenience as it offered the resident £500. Its offer was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on our website), which suggests compensation of between £250 and £750 in cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.
  8. In view of this, the landlord’s overall offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances. Although there was a period of time when it did not appear to be progressing work, the evidence shows that this was from 8 March to 26 April 2021, which although noticeable, was not a significant delay and it was party beyond the landlord’s control as it needed time to find, order and take delivery of the new flooring from its supplier. The landlord explained in its stage two complaint response that there was a delay following the removal of the dehumidifiers, however, the evidence shows it attended following this to remove parts of the carpet.
  9. The landlord offered the resident £96 for excess electricity costs incurred running the dehumidifiers. As explained above, the landlord’s policy allows it to offer £2 per day, per dehumidifier. In this case, the landlord’s offer was in line with its policy as two devices were in place for 22 days. The resident explained in her escalation that she also wanted it to compensate for extra utility costs incurred during the repairs. The landlord advised her that as a goodwill gesture, it would compensate her for any other increased electricity costs whilst she was decanted, if she provided evidence of these costs. This was a reasonable offer, and attempt by the landlord to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The landlord would not be expected to compensate for increased electricity costs without proof of the extra costs incurred, as such it was reasonable for it to request this information before arranging a payment.
  10. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for its delay escalating her complaint through its internal process. This Service contacted the landlord on 25 May 2021 asking it to escalate her complaint, it formally acknowledged her stage two complaint on 23 June, and issued its final response on 29 June. The landlord took 20 working days to acknowledge the complaint, and 24 working days to issue its response. Although the landlord exceeded the target timeframes set out in its website, its delay was not significant, and it provided an update on 3 June 2021. Its offer of compensation was therefore reasonable and proportionate to the impact this failing had on the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests awards of compensation between £50 and £250 in cases where there has been failure by the landlord to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact. In this case, although the delay to the landlord’s complaint response would have caused inconvenience to the resident, it did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint.
  11. The resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord said it would not replace her bedroom or living room carpet. The landlord explained that, in line with the tenancy agreement it was only responsible for replacing the kitchen and bathroom vinyl flooring, and that the resident would need to make a claim on her contents insurance policy (if she had one) for other damages.
  12. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the resident or landlord were directly responsible for the leak. Contents insurance is suitable in situations when damage has occurred which was nobody’s fault and tenants are advised to take out such insurance to cover situations such as leaks. It was therefore reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to advise the to make a claim under her own insurance policy. The landlord acknowledged on 18 March that the resident did not have such insurance in place. It explained that its compensation policy was not intended to compensate for her lack of insurance, and that it would be unfair towards other residents who had contents insurance if it did replace her carpets. This response was in accordance with its policy, as explained above. Also, it was a reasonable response as the landlord would only be expected to compensate residents for damage caused as a result of negligence by either the landlord or its contractors and it would not be expected to pay compensation for damage that it was not responsible for causing.
  13. It was also reasonable for the landlord to suggest that the resident could pursue a claim through its liability insurance policy if she considered that the landlord was responsible for causing damage to her carpets and personal possessions. The landlord is entitled to have insurance in place to assist it with the cost of negligence claims and it would not be expected to provide compensation for negligence claims outside the insurance process. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to assess the handling or outcome of insurance claims and therefore we cannot comment on this further in our investigation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a burst water pipe satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s offer of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in completing the repairs was reasonable in the circumstances. It also offered appropriate advice to the resident about claiming on her own insurance or the landlord’s liability insurance and it compensated her appropriately for her increased electricity costs, in line with its policies.