Peabody Trust (202107901)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107901

Peabody Trust

12 July 2022


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:
    1. The repairs to the resident’s roof.
    2. The resident’s request for compensation.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident informed the landlord that there was a roof leak at the property on 5 October 2020 and a contractor attended on 22 October 2020. Two further appointments were scheduled; however, the contractor was unable to gain access to the property and the work order was cancelled. The resident reported repair issues to the roof again on 25 February 2021 and several appointments were attended between March and July 2021.
  3. Following correspondence from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord to raise a complaint on 29 July 2021. The resident stated the landlord had failed to address the leak in the property, which had caused her stress and loss of the use of two of her rooms. She also said that damage had been caused to her ceiling and carpet. In her complaint escalation, the resident stated she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s initial compensation offer as the scaffolding had caused her an injury and she had been scared that she would get electrocuted due to leaking from the ceiling light. She also said that a contractor had damaged her carpet.
  4. In the landlord’s final response, it said that it had exceeded the typical time expected to complete the repairs due to several mitigating factors. It said it would not offer compensation for loss of rooms as there was no evidence that the room was unusable. It advised that it was unable to assess whether the contractor had damaged her carpet or her personal injury claim, within its complaint process, and signposted her to its liability insurance. It also said it was unable to compensate for the damage to her personal belongings as residents are expected to have home contents insurance. It offered her £300 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused and £40 for the delay in the complaint response.
  5. In her complaint to this Service, the resident stated that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation offer. She said that she had lost use of two of the rooms due to fear that they would be injured due to the risk of electrocution through the lights.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the repair issues and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

Repairs to the roof

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, it is responsible for repairs to the structure of the building. As a result, the landlord is obliged to respond to the resident’s reports of the leak and subsequent damage to the roof and respond in line with its repair timeframes. The landlord’s repairs policy states that programmed repairs, including roofing works with scaffolding, will be completed within 60 calendar days. 
  2. The landlord initially responded in line with its repairs policy as the roof leak was reported on 5 October 2020 and a contractor attended on 22 October 2020. The landlord then attempted to attend two further appointments on 5 December 2020 and 12 December 2020 but was unable to gain access to the property. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for providing access to contractors to complete repairs. Although it may have been helpful for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the repair issues, it was not unreasonable that it cancelled the work order after two missed appointments. The landlord had also advised the resident within its complaint response that this action was in line with its policy.
  3. The resident did not contact the landlord again regarding the roof until 25 February 2021. The landlord then made the electrics safe on 4 March 2021 and a further appointment was attended on 5 March 2021. Scaffolding was then required before further work could be carried out on 30 March 2021 and 31 March 2021. Due to the complexity of the required works, a surveyor appointment was also required. Further works to renew the roof were completed on 4 July 2021. The contractor noted that the appointment was weather dependent, but it is unclear if this caused additional delays. Although the landlord has clear records of the attended appointments, there is limited detail regarding the actions completed at the appointment, and whilst it is difficult to assess whether the entire delay was reasonable, the landlord did recognize that there was some failure on its part and offered compensation.
  4. Overall, the works took a total of 129 calendar days to complete, which exceeded the landlord’s repair timeframes. In cases where the landlord is unable to adhere to its repair timeframes, for appropriate reasons, the landlord should ensure that it tries to complete the repair as soon as possible; keeps the resident updated and attempts to implement interim solutions where possible. The landlord has explained to the resident that there were delays due to the complexity of the issue, the scaffolding and inspection required and the impact of the pandemic. In an internal email, the landlord also cited additional reasons for the delay including required follow-on work, a recall and internal decoration. In light of the required work, and the mitigating factors, the delays were not necessarily excessive. However, it is unclear whether the landlord’s communication with the resident was comprehensive or whether she was kept updated with the progress of the works. The landlord has acknowledged in its complaint response that its customer service and repair service were not up to its service standards. It has also identified how it could improve its repair service as it stated, “having oversight from a surveyor sooner may have minimised some delays in the case”.
  5. In line with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £50-£250 are appropriate in cases in which the landlord has failed to meet service standards for actions and responses. Although it is recognised that the delays will have caused stress and inconvenience to the resident, the landlord took steps to complete the repairs and could not control all of the factors that contributed to the delay. As the landlord offered £300 compensation, it exceeded the level of compensation that would be expected by this Service, so it has reasonably redressed this element of the complaint.

Compensation

  1. In her complaint to the landlord the resident made several requests for compensation, including for damage to her carpets by the contractors, for loss of rooms and injury due to the scaffolding. In such cases, the landlord would be expected to assess whether it was responsible for awarding such compensation in line with its policies and legal obligations. 
  2. The resident had requested compensation for her carpet, due to damage caused by a painter that attended the property. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, it will not consider compensation when a claim can be made on the resident’s home contents insurance. It states that “residents are expected to take out adequate home contents insurance for their furniture, decoration and personal possessions to insure them against accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage, burglary and so on”. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident to her home contents insurance in order to make a claim. While the landlord would not be obliged to, it was reasonable that it advised it could consider compensating her insurance excess as a gesture of goodwill, if it was later found to be liable for the damage. The landlord had discussed the issue with the contractor but noted that he denied causing damage to the carpet. The landlord also noted that the resident had not provided any evidence of the damage caused. However, it was appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident to its liability insurer, if she wanted to submit a claim.
  3. Similarly, the landlord signposted the resident to its liability insurer as she said she had been injured by the scaffolding at the property. This was in line with its compensation policy, which states that it will not consider personal injury claims. As noted above, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing; therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to its liability insurers as they would be more appropriately equipped to assess the claim.
  4. The resident also requested compensation as she said she had lost use of two of the rooms, due to risk of electrocution. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will award compensation if a service failure has led to loss of use of part of the property. However, in such cases the landlord would need to make an assessment and determine that the resident had loss use of the rooms. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident advised the landlord she was unable to use the rooms, prior to the complaint, so it had been unable to make an assessment. In its stage two response, the landlord explained that it was not viable to make a retrospective assessment for the loss of room, however, it had assessed the photos provided by the resident and had not found the rooms to be uninhabitable.
  5. Overall, the landlord has demonstrated that it considered the resident’s compensation requests and acted in line with its policies. It also signposted the resident to the relevant insurance, and this was reasonable.

Determination

  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, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for compensation.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £300 offered in its final response.