Peabody Trust (202014128)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014128

Peabody Trust

28 March 2024

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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling, and:
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 2007. The property is a 2-bedroom flat located on the second floor. She shares the property with her daughter.
The landlord has provided repair records since January 2019. On 29 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for its repair delays. It provided a list of repairs it would complete. The resident replied to the email and added 2 further repair requests. She expressed dissatisfaction with the current state of the property and the landlord’s handling of previous repair requests.
On 12 February 2021, the resident contacted this Service and advised that she had difficulties with the landlord’s complaints process. She advised that she had issues with the landlord responding to her repair requests since the beginning of her tenancy. The resident provided a list of outstanding repairs that the landlord had failed to complete in the past 3 years, including damp and mould.
On 18 March 2021, this Service advised the landlord to respond to the resident through its complaint procedure within 15 working days. On 26 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and confirmed that the contractor had almost completed some of the works. She advised that a window in a bedroom had been surveyed, but no date booked in for repair. On 7 May 2021, she advised the landlord there were further repairs to be complete. On 12 August 2021, this Service emailed the landlord and advised it to provide a complaint response within 10 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 September 2021. It upheld the complaint. It advised that there had been a communication breakdown between its old and new repair contractor which caused a delay in her repairs. It apologised and offered £100 compensation for inconvenience. On the same date the resident advised that some repairs were still outstanding, including a bedroom window. She wanted the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs before considering the compensation offer. The landlord did not reply to the resident until she chased a response on 12 October 2021.
On 18 October 2021, it asked if she wished to escalate her complaint. On 5 November 2021, she escalated her complaint to stage 2. She was unhappy with the length of time taken to complete the repairs. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs and felt the compensation offer was not enough.
On 22 December 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to clarify what the outstanding repairs were and instructed a contractor on 18 January 2022 to complete the repairs, with a target completion date of 23 February 2022. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 March 2022 to advised that the window in her daughter’s bedroom had not been repaired and she felt that the landlord did not care.
On 2 April 2022, the resident advised this Service that she was not sure if the landlord had escalated her complaint to stage 2. She emailed the landlord on 29 April 2022 chasing outstanding repairs. On 24 May 2022, this Service asked the landlord to provide its stage 2 complaint response before 1 June 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 31 May 2022. It confirmed that it had completed all repairs except the bedroom window, and it would source a specialist contractor to complete this repair. The window was repaired on 15 June 2022. It apologised for its poor communication and acknowledged that its repairs took longer than expected. It offered £500 for its failure to deliver on its service standards and £200 as a gesture of goodwill.
On 2 September 2022, the resident contacted this Service as the landlord had not paid the compensation offer. She advised she had accepted it in June 2022 and received an automated reply. After contact from this Service the landlord processed the compensation. The resident requested that this Service investigate her complaint as she felt the landlord had not improved its repair processes and she continued to have issues reporting repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident complained to this Service about the landlord’s response to her repair requests since the beginning of her tenancy. This investigation has only focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s outstanding repair requests she brought to this Service on 12 February 2021, as these were the issues that gave rise to the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.

The landlord’s repair policy states that it will respond to routine repairs within an average of 10 working days. If repairs take longer to resolve, it will keep the resident informed of timescales required to complete the repair and keep the resident informed throughout the repairs process.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, (HHSRS) introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows compensation for time trouble and inconvenience. It defines extensive disruption when there has been a high impact and high effort to resolve, and/or extended time to complete actions, and failure to communicate or follow procedure and allows a figure of £401 to £600 of compensation for this failure.
It is not disputed that the landlord delayed in carrying out repairs. In its complaint response it apologised and accepted that its communication and service standards were poor and offered compensation of £700 to reflect this. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of this Service to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. 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.
Landlords should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, visits, inspections, and investigations. The evidence provided by the landlord does not show this level of detail. It provided details of work orders since January 2019. This shows the date a work order was created, a brief description of the repair request, and if the order was completed or cancelled. It does not provide the date of completion or cancellation, and it does not detail the repairs it carried out or why a repair was cancelled. This demonstrates poor record keeping which hampered this investigation.
On 29 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for its repair delays and provided a list of outstanding repairs. When the resident brought her complaint to this Service on 12 February 2021, she provided a list of outstanding repairs (including damp and mould), that the landlord had not completed in 3 years. It is evident that there had been outstanding repairs since before 29 October 2020.
Based on email correspondence between the landlord and the resident, and the landlord’s repair records it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s repair times for the following repairs were:
1. repair bedroom window: 32 months.
2. bedroom radiator: 23 months.
3. damp in bathroom wall: 22 months.
4. renew kitchen extractor fan: 20 months.
5. replace door handles: 16 months.
6. kitchen sink leak: 15 months.
7. bathroom wash hand basin leak: 15 months.
8. replace hatch in bedroom ceiling: 15 months.
9. damp in bedroom wall: Undetermined.
Based on the landlord’s repair records this Service cannot determine how long it took for the landlord to respond to the resident’s reports of damp in her daughter’s bedroom. In its complaint investigation, the landlord confirmed that there was a leak from the communal riser that backed into the resident’s flat. On 25 July 2019, a work order was raised to check plumbing in a communal riser. On 29 October 2020, the landlord confirmed that an outstanding repair included damp coming through the bedroom wall.
Based on this evidence, the first report of damp into the resident’s daughter’s bedroom wall was sometime between 25 July 2019, when the communal riser plumbing order was raised and 29 October 2020, when the landlord confirmed that it was an outstanding repair. This repair was complete sometime in April 2021, when the resident confirmed in an email that the repairs were complete.
It is evident that the damp reported caused mould in the property. In its complaint investigation, the landlord’s repair team advised that it completed a mould wash to the bedroom and the bathroom wall in April 2021. The landlord’s records do not detail the extent of the damp and mould or provide any indication as to the conditions the resident had been living in before the repairs were complete. This is a record keeping failure which has been assessed separately.
The landlord demonstrated no regard for its responsibility under HHSRS to consider the potential hazard of damp and mould in the property. Based on the evidence, the landlord responded to a report of a damp wall in the bathroom 22 months after it received its first report. It responded to the damp in the bedroom wall some time over 6 months after it received the first report. The landlord’s repair records do not show any evidence of inspections, surveys, or provide any indication that it assessed the damp until it carried out repairs and mould washes in April 2021. This was a significant failure by the landlord when it was aware that the damp wall was affecting the resident’s daughter’s bedroom wall. Its delay was unreasonable and caused significant distress to the resident.
The resident raised health and safety concerns about the window in her daughter’s bedroom. On 22 December 2021, she advised the landlord that an operative told her that the window did not close properly and had to be secured by the latch and if she tried to open and close it, the window would fall out of the frame and potentially injure her. As such, the window had to remain open. She advised that this had been explained to the landlord on more than 3 occasions. This repair took 32 months from it was first reported and there is no evidence that the landlord carried out a temporary repair to secure the window. The landlord failed to assess the risk and again demonstrated no regard for its responsibility under HHSRS.
The landlord’s delay in responding to this repair request was a significant failure. The resident was understandably concerned for her daughter’s health and safety which caused distress for a considerable period of time. It is also reasonable to conclude that having an open window for 32 months would have increased the resident’s utility bills and significantly impacted the resident’s living conditions.
The resident advised this Service that she felt that the landlord only completed the repairs because of the intervention of this Service. The evidence indicates that this was the case. After this Service contacted the landlord in March 2021, the landlord carried out repairs in April 2021, including the damp and mould. In May 2022, this Service intervened again, and the landlord carried out further repairs within a week. Internal correspondence shows that the landlord prioritised these repairs because it was a Housing Ombudsman
Service complaint.
The landlord should have had systems in place to ensure its repair services were operating effectively. The landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests were delayed and reactive. The landlord’s failure to respond appropriately and its continued inaction contributed to the resident’s distress.
This Service finds that the landlord’s offer of redress was insufficient. Although the landlord acknowledged that the repairs took longer than expected, the complaint response does not refer to the number of repair requests raised, the extent of the repair delays, nor does the offer reflect the detriment to the resident. Correspondence from the resident to the landlord refers to her distress in having to fight with it to provide a liveable home for her children and she also refers to how the landlord’s failings impacted her mental health.
This Service finds that there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests. This is because it unreasonably delayed in its response to several repair requests outside of its average timescale of 10 working days. This investigation was unable to determine why the repairs took so long and there was a lack of communication with the resident to provide timescales. The landlord failed to consider its responsibilities under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, or HHRSRS, to consider the potential hazard of damp and mould, and failed to demonstrate any learning specific to its failures in addressing the reports of damp and mould in its complaint’s response.
It is recognised that the landlord acknowledged some failings and offered redress. However, the offer of redress did not put things right and was not sufficient in the circumstances. This Service has considered the number of repair requests and its delayed response times (as detailed in paragraph 20) when assessing an appropriate compensation figure. Correspondence reviewed in this investigation indicated that the landlord’s inaction and failure to communicate contributed to and exacerbated the distress felt by the resident.
The resident reported damp and health and safety concerns which should have been prioritised. The landlord demonstrated a dismissive and unsympathetic approach to the resident’s request for repairs which caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. She went to considerable time and trouble to get repairs completed for an unreasonable length of time and she felt that the landlord only responded to her repair requests because of the intervention of this Service. It is evident that there has been a breakdown in the resident’s relationship with the landlord and she felt that the landlord has not improved its repair service as a result of this investigation.
The resident lost enjoyment of her home, particularly the delay in response to reports of the broken window, over a period of 32 months. This period also included a delay in responding to damp for an undetermined length of time. Allowing time for the landlord to complete repairs, it is reasonable to attribute 31 months (135 weeks) of this loss of enjoyment to the landlord’s failures. An order of compensation has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
As part of a previous case (202122259) the landlord has been ordered to carry out a review of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to damp and mould. This Service has not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of that wider order.

Complaint Handling

In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), it is recommended that landlords acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days to confirm what the complaint is about and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days from receipt of the resident’s complaint. The landlord should provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days from receipt of the resident’s complaint escalation.
The Code makes it clear that landlords should make it easy for residents to complain through its complaint’s procedure. Although the landlord has not provided any record of the resident’s previous complaints, it is reasonable to conclude she was having trouble before she chose to approach this Service for support in February 2021, when she advised that she was having difficulty with the landlord’s complaints process.
On 29 October 2020, the landlord apologised for its delay in actioning repairs. The resident replied to the landlord the next day and advised that if the repairs could be complete “it would be greatly appreciated and maybe finally I can get a home that is liveable as opposed to what feels like an accident waiting to happen.” The landlord’s apology and the resident’s response indicate that the resident was not happy with the landlord’s service and as such, it should have registered a complaint. The landlord’s failure to identify and register a complaint caused significant time and trouble for the resident.
There is no correspondence to show that the landlord acknowledged the complaint at either stage in the complaints process, even after intervention from this Service. Had it done so, it would have confirmed the resident’s outstanding issues which would have given it a better understanding of the complaint and how to put things right. Its failure to acknowledge the complaint contributed to its poor overall handling of the complaint.
On 18 March 2021, this Service notified the landlord of the complaint and advised it to provide a stage 1 complaint response. Thereafter, this Service intervened once more, and the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 8 September 2021. The resident remained dissatisfied and requested to escalate her complaint on 18 October 2021, however, the landlord did not provide a stage 2 complaint response until this Service intervened on 24 May 2022. It provided its final complaint response on 31 May 2022. Based on the evidence, the landlord took over 19 months to bring the complaint through its complaints process. This was an unreasonable response time and significantly outside of the Code’s guidelines. This was inappropriate and caused significant delay to the resident in bringing her complaint to this Service. It also contributed to the landlord’s delay in completing the repairs in a reasonable timeframe.
Its stage 1 complaint did not address all of the resident’s complaint and was dismissive in tone. It is evident that the landlord failed to carry out an appropriate level of complaint investigation at stage 1, demonstrated by the difference in responses between stage 1 and stage 2. The stage 1 response lacked any learning and failed to commit to putting things right going forward. Its stage 1 complaint response was not code compliant as it did not provide the resident with this Services details. It offered £100 compensation but failed to demonstrate what the compensation was for or how it arrived at this conclusion.
The landlord’s stage 2 response attempted to put things right but again did not explain how things went wrong in its handling of the repair or identify learning from the repair handling failures. It did not set out how it had reached the figure of £500 or why £200 was a gesture of goodwill instead of financial redress for distress and inconvenience caused. It failed to identify learning from the resident’s case and did not explain to the resident how it was going to ensure that the mistakes weren’t repeated. The landlord explained that Covid-19 was to blame for some of the delay, but it was unreasonable explanation without a reason as to why Covid-19 was to blame. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures or demonstrate that it would improve its complaint handling procedures.
This Service finds that there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord failed to identify and register complaints in line with the Code, failed to acknowledge complaints, it did not provide complaint responses within the code’s timeframes, and it failed to communicate with the resident about her complaint, and it is reasonable to conclude that it would not have escalated her complaint but for the intervention of this Service. The complaint investigation was not sufficient, and it did not implement any learning from the resident’s complaint.
These failures had a significant impact on the resident. It caused the resident time and trouble in bringing the complaint to this Service. Its failure to communicate effectively through its complaint procedure damaged the landlord and resident relationship. Furthermore, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord would have completed the repairs at an earlier stage if it had addressed the complaint appropriately. An order has been made below to reflect the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Record keeping.

This investigation was hampered by the landlord’s poor record keeping. On 29 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for its repair delays and provided what it understood to be a list of outstanding repairs. This clearly evidences that there was previous correspondence which was not provided to this Service. The landlord’s repair records only provided details of when a repair order was created. This investigation could only determine when the repairs were complete when it was confirmed in email correspondence by the resident to the landlord. Some of the repairs that had been agreed in email, and completed by the landlord did not have work orders created on the records provided to this Service.
The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors. The landlord’s record keeping was inappropriate.
Because of the landlord’s poor repair record keeping, it relied on the resident to update it on what repairs were outstanding and what had been completed. There was email correspondence from the landlord to the resident asking if its contractors had completed repairs. This was inappropriate. The landlord should have had systems in place and effective communication with its contractors so that it understood the progress of its repairs and the condition of the property to ensure it is adhering to is responsibilities to the resident.
This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord’s poor record keeping was a contributing factor to the failures identified in the responsive repairs and complaint handling investigation.
It is acknowledged that this specific complaint was inherited by the landlord after a merger. This service also recognises that the landlord has recently provided a learning statement (link below) which demonstrates a commitment to improving its complaint handling and record keeping practices. This Service has not made any orders which would duplicate its recent commitment.

https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/2024/03/05/peabody-4-severe-maladministration-findings/

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that a senior director for the landlord apologise to the resident in person for the failures identified in this report.
It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £3650 compromising:
1. £1500 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in responding to the resident’s repair requests.
2. £900 for loss of enjoyment of the property representing approximately 15% of the average rent for the area for a period of 135 weeks from when it should have completed the window repair. (average weekly rent table below).
3. £250 for time and trouble caused to the resident to get repairs completed.
4. £1000 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling.

As the landlord has already paid £700 that it offered in its complaint response, a further £2950 is payable to the resident.

It is ordered that the landlord carry out a review of this case and identifies any learning it can apply to improve its repair, complaint handling, and record keeping practices in line with its recent commitment to learn from its mistakes.
It is ordered for the landlord to contact the resident in the first instance to confirm if she has any outstanding repairs. A qualified person should attend the property with a member of its Neighbourhood Management Team to identify any further repairs required and set out an action plan with timescales of when the work will be completed. Furthermore, it should set a communication plan with the resident to ensure she is provided with regular updates.
The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-rents-lettings-and-tenancies#live-tables-on-rents