Peabody Trust (202015259)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015259

Peabody Trust

5 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.

Complaint definition

The complaint is about the length of time scaffolding was erected outside the property.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord and the property is a flat.
On 10 November 2020 the landlord erected scaffolding at the front of the property and carried out works at the front of the roof. Further works were required to the rear of the roof and scaffolding was also to be erected at the back of the property.
The landlord’s internal communication on 18 December 2020 indicated the additional works had not been completed and that the repair job was now outside of the landlord’s repairs target. The landlord’s repair records indicate the additional repairs to the roof of the property were carried out on 13 March 2021.
On 4 March 2021 the resident logged a complaint because she was unhappy with the length of time the scaffolding had been erected and with the conduct of the workers who erected the scaffolding. The resident also stated works had not been carried out at the property. The resident was also unhappy the landlord had not given advance notice about the scaffolding going up and with the landlord’s failure to respond to the complaints she had previously raised over the telephone. The resident stated she was also complaining on behalf of her neighbours in nearby flats. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.
The landlord contacted the resident on 9 March 2021 to advise that her complaint about the landlord’s handling of reported ASB would be investigated separately under a different reference number. The landlord provided the resident with a stage one complaint response. The landlord advised the resident that:
Due to the extensive works that had to be undertaken, it extended the period the scaffolding had to remain erected.
The works were initially slow but had now been carried out. The landlord also had reviewed reports that demonstrated visually and verbally the progress of the works to the roof.
Under normal working conditions the landlord would have asked its contractors to notify residents when scaffolding was due to be put up. However, the landlord was not operating a business-as-usual service because of the pandemic and its effects to the landlord’s service. The landlord apologised that the resident did not receive any advanced notification of the scaffolding.
The landlord advised it would not consider a group complaint in this instance because the problems with the roof had affected the residents in different ways. The landlord also advised it had not received written authorisation from the residents of the neighbouring flats for the resident to complain on their behalf.
On 28 April 2021 the landlord’s contractor carried out a post inspection of the roof works and did not find any issues. The contractor asked if the scaffold at the front of the property could be taken down or if the landlord would like to post inspect the works itself.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 May 2021. The resident wanted the landlord to detail the extensive works that had been carried out on the roof because she was under the impression only some tiles needed to be replaced. The resident advised the scaffolding was erected in a communal area and did therefore affect her neighbours in the same way. The resident also advised she was unable to install broadband fibre because of the scaffolding and she felt the landlord was responsible for the financial loss she incurred.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 11 May 2021. As a resolution the resident asked the landlord to remove the scaffolding and to provide an explanation for the length of time the scaffolding remained erected because she did not feel the landlord had addressed this adequately. The resident also asked the landlord to provide confirmation of its ASB policy.
The landlord provided a stage two response on 5 July 2021. The landlord advised the resident had a separate complaint regarding the ASB and referred the resident to its website for the ASB policy. The landlord advised that:
The scaffolding had been taken down and the repairs to the roof had been completed.
There had been an unprecedented impact on its services and repair timescales because of the pandemic.
Communication regarding the scaffolding and attendance to specific properties were not as good as it could have been.
In this instance the resident and her two co-complainants were complaining in effect about the same thing, therefore the stage one handler chose to only liaise with the resident.
The resident had been incorrectly advised to contact the Ombudsman when the resident requested an escalation of her complaint.
The landlord apologised for its shortcomings and advised the appropriate feedback would be given internally.
The landlord had failed to provide a response that was fully compliant with its complaints policy and the delay with providing a stage two response was because of an increase in the number of cases the landlord had at review stage.
It had offered £50 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience and £30 compensation for complaint handling. An offer of £20 each in compensation was offered to the two neighbours.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident felt the landlord’s explanation that the delays with the repairs being carried out and the length of time the scaffolding was erected was due to the pandemic were not sufficient.

Scope of investigation

The Service has not considered the resident’s ASB complaint because this has been investigated as a separate complaint by the landlord and the resident has not referred this complaint to the Ombudsman at this time. If the resident wishes to pursue this complaint further, she may be able to contact the Ombudsman separately if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her concerns.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
put things right, and;
learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states it will aim to complete “a non-urgent repair required to rectify a fault, where works are to be scheduled to the next available resource” within 28 calendar days. The policy also states the timeframe to complete specialist works for more complex repairs will be completed within 60 calendar days.
Due to the pandemic, the landlord implemented a reduced repairs service from March 2020 onwards, whereby it would only carry out essential repairs.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out its approach to managing compensation claims. For time, trouble and inconvenience the landlord’s awards up to £100 for service failure that occurred but had a low impact and took a low effort to resolve. The landlord also awards up to £75 for moderate failure in its complaint handling, where there has been a failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure or to correctly investigate a complaint, which has resulted in inconvenience and effort to progress.

Length of time scaffolding was erected outside the property

The landlord’s works report dated 19 October 2020 advised there were two missing tiles from the roof and the lead needed to be put back down. The works report of 28 October 2020 suggested erecting scaffolding to rectify the roof that had blown away. It appears scaffolding had been erected at the property by 10 November 2020 and that works to the slates at the front of the roof were carried out on this date. The job sheet showed further works to renew the felt/asphalt on the roof were required. It also detailed that the works were urgent because of the vulnerabilities of the resident in one of the flats and due to the risk of ceiling collapse. In the landlord’s email of 18 December 2020, it notes the outstanding repair works were out of the repair target. This indicates the landlord was still operating a 60-calendar day repair target, as per its standard repairs policy.
The landlord has provided the Service with its correspondence to its contractor about the roof works. The requirement of further works to the roof were identified on 10 November 2020, but the additional works were not carried out until 13 March 2021. Having reviewed the landlord’s correspondence regarding the repair during this time, the delay to the additional works being carried out appear to be in part due to poor communication between the landlord and its contractor and a lack of action from the landlord. In December 2020 the contractor stated it had asked for the landlord’s surveyor to inspect the roof and sign off on the recommended required works. Evidence shows the additional works were not signed off until around 26 February 2021. Whilst it is understandable that there would have been some delay due to the national lockdown, the landlord has not provided a sufficient explanation for the nearly four-month delay in the signing off on the additional works. This delay resulted in the works remaining outstanding for a longer period than they should have been and caused frustrations and inconvenience to the resident, which could have been avoided.
In the stage one complaint response, the landlord advised an extensive amount of work had to be carried out, but it failed to provide any details about the type of works that had been carried out or when they had taken place. The response stated the landlord had weekly reviews with its contractors about the works but there does not appear to be any evidence of this. Had the landlord conducted weekly reviews of the works, the Ombudsman would have expected the authorisation of the additional works to have been picked up and signed off at an earlier date. The landlord failed to explain exactly how the pandemic was presenting challenges to contractors. The landlord also failed to provide an explanation for why the resident had not been contacted about the scaffolding. The landlord stated it was not operating a business as usual service but did not explain what this actually met for the resident and how long this amended service was being implemented for. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s complaint point about the conduct of the scaffolding workers.
The landlord also failed to communicate with the resident about any of the works and the scaffolding. Had the landlord provided some form of update to the resident to keep her informed, it could have prevented the need for the resident to enquire about the repairs. Having missed this opportunity to communicate with the resident, the landlord failed to potentially alleviate the issue where it had already recognised service failure in the length of time the repair had been outstanding.
The landlord advised the Ombudsman that it would not be feasible to clarify what proportion of the delays were and were not down to the pandemic. Once the additional works were signed off and authorised around 26 February 2021, the final works were carried out within two weeks. It is reasonable the landlord may have experienced some delay with progressing works because of the national lockdown implemented in December 2020. However, it is not clear why there was a delay of around four months. This is further demonstrated in the landlord’s email of 18 December 2020, where it states the contractor wanted to get the repair shut down and the scaffold removed as quickly as possible. There is no indication of any pandemic related delays to the works in correspondence between the landlord and contractor during this time.
A post inspection of the works was carried out on 28 April 2021 found no issues and the repair was confirmed as completed. The contractor asked if the scaffolding at the front of the property could now be removed or whether the landlord wanted to inspect it first. It appears the scaffolding was taken down around late June 2021 or early July 2021, around two months later. The Ombudsman has not found any records or evidence that explains this two-month delay. In the absence of such evidence, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the delay was unreasonable. The landlord should have made removing the scaffolding a priority, given the length of time the scaffolding had been erected and the complaint raised by the resident.
The Ombudsman has considered the inconvenience and frustrations caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s delay with taking action on the additional required works in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website). In acknowledgement of the service failure in completing the required works within accordance of its repairs policy and the landlords lack of communication, the landlord should pay the resident £200 in compensation. The Ombudsman may award compensation between £100-£600 in instances where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact. This is also in recognition of the landlord’s failure to fully acknowledge its service failings with the length of time the repair was outstanding and not make any attempts to put things right.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will aim to provide a stage one response within 10 working days, acknowledge an escalation request within three working days and provide a stage two response within 15 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which sets out our service’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. However, the Code advises a stage two response should be provided within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman is concerned with the difficulties the resident experienced in escalating her complaint. It also appears the resident was corresponding with two different departments with the landlord and receiving conflicting information about whether she could escalate her complaint. Following contact from the Ombudsman on 6 May 2021, the landlord asked the resident which of her two complaints she would like escalated. The resident advised the landlord of the resolution she was seeking, which was to have the scaffolding removed, for the landlord to provide an explanation for the length of time the scaffolding had been erected and provide its ASB policy on the same date. However, the landlord continued to ask the resident to specify what she remained dissatisfied with and why she wanted the complaint to be escalated. This was inappropriate and would have delayed the complaint and caused additional time and trouble to the resident as she was obliged to repeat her concerns.
On 19 May 2021 the resident was advised her complaint would be reviewed at stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord then told the resident on 20 May 2021, that she no longer had the option to escalate her complaint and would need to contact the Ombudsman. It is clear there was an internal breakdown in communication with the landlord, which resulted in the resident receiving conflicting information. This would have caused further inconvenience and distress to the resident. The landlord should have a clear recording system whereby the position of a complaint within its complaints procedure is visible to all staff members in order to prevent this situation from occurring again.
The Ombudsman has noted that there was a delay with the resident receiving a stage two response, but the landlord had provided regular updates to the resident during this period. The landlord had also recognised the resident had been prevented from moving her complaint forward and apologised to her. The landlord was proactive in providing the resident with updates on when her stage two response and it responded within its amended timescales. However, there was still a delay of 19 working days in providing the resident with response. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to provide the resident with information on what was causing the delays and a revised timescale for when she should receive a response.
The landlord was entitled to decide to investigate the resident’s individual concerns rather than responding to a group complaint on behalf of herself and her neighbours. This was in line with its complaints policy and was a reasonable position to take, given that it had not received permission from the neighbours for the resident to act on their behalf. However, the landlord could have been clearer in its handling of the resident’s request to raise a group complaint. In its stage one and two responses, the landlord advised it would not be investigating a group complaint and referred to its complaints policy to explain its position. It is not clear why the landlord then provided compensation to the resident’s neighbours in the stage two response, instead of contacting the resident’s neighbours individually to ask if they wished to set up separate complaints. The inclusion of the neighbours’ compensation indicates the landlord had considered some elements of the complaint as a group complaint. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have written to the resident’s neighbours individually, outlining its investigation, the compensation awarded and the reasons for this offer. By including the neighbours’ compensation in the resident’s stage two response, the landlord has not been clear in its position regarding the group complaint and this lack of clarity may have caused confusion and frustration to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged its communication regarding the scaffolding was not as good as it could have been but failed to say what it should have done to correct this. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord identified its failure to provide a stage one response that was fully compliant with its policies and its delay with completing the complaint at stage two. In order to put this right, the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience and £30 compensation for its complaint handling.
The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance (published on our website). After considering this offer in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, it does not fully reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s initial failure to escalate her complaint and the delays with providing a stage two response. The remedies guidance states up to £100 can be awarded in recognition of service failure, which would be appropriate in this instance. Therefore the landlord should pay the resident an additional £100 compensation to fully reflect its failure to meet its service standards in complaint handling and its failure in addressing all concerns raised.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the length of time the scaffolding was erected outside the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £300 in compensation, broken down as follows:

£200 for the failures identified with the length of time the scaffolding was erected.
£100 for the service failures identified with its complaint handling.

The compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against any rent arrears.
The compensation award includes the £80 compensation already awarded by the landlord in its complaint process, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this decision.