Peabody Trust (202105141)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105141

Peabody Trust

17 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 resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs to his balcony door.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

2. The landlord’s Complaints Procedure states that “Our complaints process is comprised of two stages. Stage one will be an investigation carried out by a case manager from the relevant service area. If the complaint is escalated to stage two, an independent review will be carried out by the Customer Experience Team”.
3. The landlord’s Compensation Policy sets out the amount it pays for “Time, Trouble and Inconvenience”:
   1. Minor Disruption – £1-£100 – Service Failure Occurred but low impact and low effort to resolve.
   2. Moderate Disruption – £101 – £300 – Low impact of but high effort to resolve or high impact but low effort to resolve.
   3. Extensive Disruption – £301 – £400 – High impact and high effort to resolve, extended time to complete actions and failure to communicate or follow procedure.
4. With regards to “Missed Appointments by a Contractor”, the Compensation Policy states, “this will depend on the contract between the contractor and Peabody”.
5. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that:
   1. Programmed Repairs – Works that require additional time due to manufacture, complexity or specialist trade – are “to be completed within 60 calendar days”.
   2. Specialist Works – Works that fall outside the timeframe of a Responsive Repair, are complex in nature therefore require either a specialist contractor… – are “to be completed within 60 calendar days”.
6. Due to the introduction of the Covid-19 lockdown and social distancing restrictions imposed by the government, on 23 March 2020 the landlord decided to only carry out Essential Repairs, which mainly concerned situations where there was a health and safety or a security risk, with existing repairs put on hold.  All repairs were classified as Essential or Non-Essential although the Repairs Policy did not make specific reference to balcony doors.
7. Section 3.25 of the resident’s tenancy agreement states that the resident is obliged “to report promptly to Peabody any disrepair or defect for which Peabody is responsible in the structure or exterior or installations of the premises, or in any fixture or fittings in the common parts.”

Summary of Events

8. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, his tenancy commencing on 16 March 2020. His property is an upper floor flat with a balcony.  The balcony door has a multi-point locking mechanism and handle.
9. On 25 March 2020 the resident reported that he could not open his balcony door which caused a lack of ventilation, and which was particularly important at that time due to lockdown and the resident recently painting his flat.  The landlord agreed to attend as an emergency repair.  The landlord has not provided a contemporaneous record of the visit. However, the later correspondence that has been provided to this Service indicates that the landlord’s contractor attended on or around 27 March 2021 and managed to open the door. The landlord in its correspondence noted that the contractor showed the resident how to open and close the door, but identified that the handle needed to be replaced by a locksmith.
10. There is no evidence that the landlord took further action in respect of the repair to the balcony door or that the resident pursued the repair until 2 November 2020, when the landlord raised an order to replace the balcony door handle as “the balcony door [was] not sliding shut”. An appointment was made for the contractor to attend the resident’s property on 4 November 2020, but it did not attend.  On the same day, the resident rearranged the appointment for 8 December 2020.
11. The landlord repair records confirm that on 8 December 2020 the contractor’s operative noted that en route, a specialist operative should attend as this was “a complex door and locking system [which] needs a specialist glazer or upvc specialist”. On 10 December 2020 the contractor advised the resident that there was “knock-on effect with parts of windows and doors due to manufacturers being closed for a while due to COVID.”
12. In an exchange of correspondence between 9 and 17 December 2020 the resident sent emails to the landlord stating that he was unhappy that since reporting a fault to his balcony door on 27 March 2021, a locksmith had not fixed the broken lock. He complained of two missed appointments which were cancelled by the contractor at the last minute. The landlord in response advised that the initial delay was due to all non-essential works being placed on hold due to Covid-19 and the works were now scheduled to take place on 18 January 2021.  In a further email sent on 18 December 2021 the landlord explained that the delay was due to the supplier of the part required for the door as there was a large backlog due to production being halted because of Covid-19; the delay was not due to it not being able to send an operative.
13. The resident enquired whether the appointment of 18 January 2021 could be brought forward. He stated that the door was constantly open which presented a security risk and meant he could not control the temperature in his flat. The landlord advised that the appointment could only be brought forward if there was a cancellation as the lock was a specialist lock and required a specific operative to carry out the works. It further advised that the need for a specialist operative had contributed to the delay as the operative originally sent had to send the job back. The landlord also advised that it would raise a complaint after the repair had been completed so it could review the handling of the repair in full.
14. The landlord’s repair records indicate that the contractor did not attend the appointment of 18 January 2021 as the contractor was awaiting parts to arrive from overseas.  The resident in his correspondence to the landlord has stated that the lock to balcony door was repaired in February 2021 although the landlord’s repair records do not contain details of such a visit.
15. On 2 March 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint. He advised that the landlord had taken 11 months to repair the lock on his balcony door following his report of 27 March 2020, during which time two appointments were cancelled at the last minute.  He stated that the balcony door presented a health and safety risk as the door was consistently open during winter, affecting his ability to regulate the temperature in his property.  The resident also advised that there was a security risk as intruders could gain access to the property.
16. On 16 March 2021, the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the complaint. It noted that the resident initially raised a repair to the balcony door on 24 March 2020 but that the repair was cancelled at the time due to the government introducing social distancing guidelines to prevent the spread of Covid-19.  As such, it only carried out an emergency repairs service.
17. The landlord noted that a new job was raised on 2 November 2020 with a new appointment booked for 8 December 2020.  However, the resident had complained of a missed appointment on 4 November 2020 and the contractor failed to attend the appointment of 8 December 2020.  The landlord further stated “another appointment was then booked for January 21, which you questioned and wanted to find out if the appointment could be brought forward, however this was not possible. Axis attended made safe and in February as you confirmed completed the repair”.
18. The landlord stated that had it “kept the two appointments that we did not attend on 04 November 20 and 08 December 20, the repair would have been completed sooner”. The landlord offered £150 which comprised £100 for Time and Trouble, £20 for two missed appointments (4 November 2020 and 8 December 2020) and £30 contribution towards the resident’s heating bill as a goodwill gesture.  It noted that the resident wished to be compensated for time taken off work to attend the missed appointments and had stated that his health was affected; however, it could only consider service failure and the resident could make a personal injury claim by contacting its insurance team.  The landlord also clarified that the compensation offer reflected the period when the repair was raised again after Covid-19 lockdown restrictions were eased.
19. On 27 March 2021 the resident escalated his complaint stating that the landlord’s offer did not take into account the impact on his physical and mental wellbeing, the inconvenience caused or his financial losses. On 31 March 2021 the landlord advised it would issue the Stage 2 response by 21 April 2021. The landlord asked the resident to clarify whether he could close his balcony door and in response, on 14 April 2021, the resident clarified that “after the engineer attended I could open the balcony door however the faulty handle was never replaced and I was still unable to close it securely due to the faulty handle mechanism”. On 25 April 2021, the resident reiterated his view that the compensation offered was insufficient as he had reported the matter in March 2020 and the issue was not resolved until February 2021, eleven months later.
20. On 15 April 2021 the landlord sent the final response to the complaint. It noted that there were significant delays.  It noted that its contractor attended the property and confirmed that the balcony door would require new handles; however, the contractors did not follow it up for reasons it could not confirm and progress was only made in November 2020.  The landlord further noted that the resident contacted it about repair issues between March and November 2020 but could not find evidence that he contacted it about the balcony door.
21. The landlord advised that it did not consider the repair to be an emergency, but once it made a commitment, it should have followed this through.  It also advised that it offered compensation on the basis of the resident’s time and trouble and the inconvenience caused.   It offered the resident £50 compensation for the period from March to November as it should have informed the resident of the status of the repair, making the compensation offered amount to £200.
22. On 25 April 2021 the resident advised that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s findings as the compensation offered was insufficient as the situation affected his physical and mental wellbeing, and had financial implications. He also queried the landlord’s compensation offer when it had not asked for proof of additional heating costs.
23. The landlord’s repair records indicate that on 11 May 2021 the specialist operative received the parts that were ordered, and that he renewed the specialist multi-point locking mechanism and handle on 13 May 2021.
24. On 4 June 2021 the resident advised this Service that he wanted to landlord to apologise for its failings and offer further compensation to resolve his complaint, taking into account the time he had spent on seeking to resolve the matter and annual leave that he had had to take. 

Assessment and findings

25. Following the resident’s initial report of March 2020, the landlord responded appropriately as it attended his property and resolved the matter raised at that time, which was to ensure that his balcony door could be opened. The landlord failed to keep a contemporaneous record of the visit, but it is not disputed that there was disrepair to the handle which needed to be repaired or replaced. The landlord then had a responsibility to repair the handle to ensure that the door was fully functional, ordering new parts as necessary. However, there is no evidence that it did so at that time. The fact that lockdown restrictions had been introduced did not prevent the landlord making the order in the first instance, although, given the disruption to manufacturing processes it cannot be confirmed when the new handles would have been received.
26. The resident in his complaint advised that he could not lock the door after the initial visit.  The landlord’s repairs policy is silent on the issue of balcony doors, not clarifying whether an unlockable balcony door should be treated as an emergency in the same way as a front entrance door.  Regardless, the onus is on the landlord to consider how best to respond to a report of disrepair, carrying out an assessment of security risks as necessary.  In this case, the landlord failed to consider the resident’s security and if any other action should be taken. For instance, there is no evidence that it took into account whether the door was unlockable or openable externally, what floor the resident’s flat was on (a photograph provided to this Service indicates that his block is low rise) or whether there was any practical measures that could be taken pending arrival of parts.
27. The landlord next took action on 2 November 2020, when it raised a repair to replace the balcony door handle. The matter was not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction until February 2021; however, again, there is a lack of accurate, contemporaneous records to confirm exactly what action was taken and when.   Landlords take action to make safe emergency situations pending completion of any necessary further repairs. The Stage 1 response states that the landlord “made safe” and then afterwards completed a satisfactory repair to the balcony door in February 2021, but that this action could have been taken at the missed appointments of 4 November 2020 and December 2020. Due to the lack of records, it is not clear exactly what works were carried out in January/February 2021, in particular because what the records to show is that the actual replacement door handle was not received and installed until some time after, in May 2021.  Nonetheless, the resident was satisfied with the works carried out in February 2021.
28. Ultimately, the version of events in the Stage 1 response indicates that there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord’s response after it raised a new repair on 2 November 2020, notwithstanding the need for a specialist contractor. Over and above this, the landlord in its Stage 1 response indicated that it could have “made safe” the balcony after the initial visit of March 2020 as making safe was not dependent on the new balcony door parts arriving. It follows that the landlord gave inaccurate advice in its emails of 10 and 18 December 2020 as it indicated that it could not attend to his balcony door until it received replacement parts.  It thereby did not manage the resident’s expectations appropriately.
29. It should be noted that if the resident felt that he was at risk following the initial visit, he had a responsibility to make a report to the landlord at the time, as confirmed in his tenancy agreement.  There is no evidence that he did so until November or December 2020, and this mitigates the landlord’s failing.  Nonetheless, there remained a responsibility upon the landlord to have proactively assessed what follow on action was needed at the initial visit, take that action, and keep an audit trail of its decisions and actions; there is no evidence that the landlord took these actions.
30. It is noted that the landlord offered compensation to the resident when responding to his complaint. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
31. In considering compensation, this Service takes into consideration factors including the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience; the seriousness of any other unfair impact; and actions by the resident or the landlord which either mitigated or contributed to actual financial loss, distress, inconvenience, or unfair impact.
32. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the delay in carrying out works after raising a new job order on 2 November 2020 and £50 for failing to update the resident prior to then.  This amounted to a discretionary offer that was in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy guidance on cases where there is moderate disruption.  However, this offer was not fully proportionate to the circumstances of the case as it did not reflect all the service failures.  In particular, after the landlord initially attended the resident’s property in March 2020 it delayed in ordering the replacement door handles and did not carry out an assessment of security risks that remained in the interim.  Moreover, its responses indicate that it could have carried out the works to make the balcony door safe sooner.
33. It is not disputed that there were two missed appointments which were undoubtedly frustrating for the resident. The landlord had no obligation to compensate the resident for loss of earnings under its Compensation Policy, nor is it obliged to compensate for loss of earnings within the legal landlord and tenant relationship. The Compensation Policy states that the landlord will compensate for missed appointments in line with the contract with the contractor.  The Ombudsman has not had sight of the contract, but landlords typically offer between £10-£20 for missed appointments. Insofar as the landlord offered a set sum for each missed appointment that was in this range, its offer was reasonable.
34. The landlord also offered £30 towards the resident’s heating bills. It thereby evidently accepted that the resident had higher heating bills than otherwise would be the case due to the balcony door not being airtight, and sought to resolve this aspect of his complaint. However, it did not explain how it arrived at this amount, for instance by considering the resident’s heating bills, clarifying to what extent it linked its service failures to increased heating costs and for what period.  As such, despite its intentions, its offer was arbitrary. The resident has provided this Service with copies of its heating bills.  The landlord missed opportunities at Stage 1 and 2 of the complaints procedure to obtain this information.

Record keeping

35. As noted above, there were failings in the landlord’s record keeping on its repairs handling as it did not always keep a record of when visits were made to the resident’s property, what action it took at the visit and what follow on actions was assessed and taken. This lack of records is concerning and a serious failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property and enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
36. Timely and accurate records also enable landlords to provide accurate information to residents, both when dealing with repair requests and responding to subsequent complaints. In this case, as a result of its failings in its record keeping the landlord was unable to confirm the condition of the balcony door after the initial visit of March 2020 or explain why its contractor did not order new door handles after the initial visit in March 2020.  Nor could it demonstrate that it maintained oversight over the repair.

Determination (decision)

37. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs to his balcony door.

Reasons

38. Whilst the landlord offered compensation its offer was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case as it did not reflect all the service failures. Specifically, after it initially attended the resident’s property in March 2020 it delayed in ordering the replacement door handles and did not carry out an assessment of security risks that remained in the interim.  Moreover, its responses indicate that it could have carried out the works to make the balcony door safe sooner than January/February 2021. Also, its offer towards the resident’s heating costs was arbitrary.

Orders

39. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. The £100 offered within its complaints procedure for his time and trouble after it raised a new repair in November 2020.
    2. The £50 offered within its complaints procedure for failing to update the resident between March and November 2020.
    3. The £20 offered within the complaints procedure for the two missed appointments.
    4. A further £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report.
40. The landlord is ordered to request that the resident provide his heating bills. It should then make a new offer towards the resident’s heating costs explaining how it has arrived at the offer. (This may or may not result in a higher offer being made).
41. The landlord is ordered to review its record keeping practices, for responsive and programmed and specialist repairs. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained, both of works raised and completed and of resident contact. As part of its review, the landlord should consider whether a record management policy and staff training are required. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome.