Peabody Trust (202113293)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113293

Peabody Trust

3 November 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s property transfer due to subsidence;
2. the resident’s pest control reports.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was an assured tenant whose tenancy began on 12 June 1995. The property is a two-bedroom flat.
The tenancy agreement shows that the landlord was required to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord has a transfer policy that shows that:
1. it will place residents requiring a permanent decant into its second highest priority band (‘A2’) and make two offers of accommodation;
2. it will review these applicants every three months and encourage them “to be active in expressing interest” in available properties but also “reserve the right to make direct offers where appropriate”;
3. when matching properties to applicants, one bedroom will be allocated to each single adult person;
4. it will consider an appeal against “the reasonableness of an offer of accommodation” within 15 working days;
5. an accommodation offer will be “considered reasonable if it meets an applicant’s bedroom need” and it will “cancel an application where an applicant refuses their final offer of accommodation”.
The landlord has a pest control policy that shows it aims to keep properties “free from health and safety threats caused by pests” by:
1. taking “reasonably prompt action to manage pest infestations for which it is responsible”;
2. assessing the risk of responding to a serious pest control report within seven working days;
3. carrying out proofing works where required and at the discretion of the investigating surveyor.
The landlord has a complaints policy and procedure that sets out a two-stage process with the relevant service area responding (within 10 working days) at stage one and an independent customer experience team review (within 20 working days) at stage two. It adds that it will not investigate issues that occurred more than six months prior to the complaint.
The landlord has a compensation policy that shows that it can make awards where “a person has experienced a delay or has incurred additional costs because of a service failure”, including where there has been a loss of amenity or failure to meet agreed standards of service.

Scope of investigation

The landlord’s records show that it established at least as early as mid-2018 that major repairs were needed to the property due to the impact of subsidence. The resident had a previous complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process on 4 February 2021 relating to damage that had been caused to her furniture and inconvenience she experienced over the previous three years. The landlord awarded £1,900 compensation which the resident accepted on 8 February 2021.
When the resident accepted this compensation award, she said that she wished to raise a separate complaint about how long it was taking for the landlord to move her out of the property and ongoing pest control issues while she was awaiting a move; this investigation is focused on these matters.

Summary of Events

The landlord recorded that it inspected the resident’s property on 2 October 2020, finding that:
1. the property had a distinct lean to all floors and stairs and had been subject to a period of monitoring;
2. this had been considered from an insurance perspective but it had been determined this was not an insurance issue and structural engineers had decided that the building movement was historic and very slow so there was no significant risk;
3. there were options available for it to temporarily decant the resident for 9-12 weeks to complete extensive remedial works (to rebuild the flooring and stairs level) or for it to permanently decant the resident and then dispose of the property.
Following a chaser email from the resident, the landlord wrote to her on 13 October 2020, advising that it believed the permanent decant was the best option and it would therefore pass the case “for approval at the priority move panel”, after which the process of securing a suitable new property would begin.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 October 2020. It confirmed that it had agreed her priority move and placed her in its ‘A2’ priority banding so would make a single direct offer for a two-bedroom property. It also signposted her to bid for properties through its choice-based lettings scheme and advised that it would review her application every three months. Its supporting report confirmed that “structurally the building has been signed off as stable and no longer moving” but it was more viable to permanently decant the resident than to conduct remedial works.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 November 2020 – it advised that when she was decanted, she would receive a £6,500 home loss payment and be assisted with removals and that her application with a local authority was ‘live’.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 December 2020, querying whether temporary accommodation was an option as she felt she could no longer stay in the property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 December 2020, advising that it considered the property habitable pending her permanent move unless she reported that it had deteriorated (in which case it could re-inspect). It added that the temporary accommodation option was no longer possible as it had authorised the permanent decant.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 January 2021 – this correspondence included comments from her that it had not been able to find appropriate alternative accommodation (as one offer would have required her and her son to live in different apartments) and she had experienced long-term subsidence-related pest issues which were still ongoing.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 January 2021, asking it to investigate a pest control issue as she was now sleeping in the living room because mice were running throughout the property and were in the wall and ceiling cavities.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 January 2021, acknowledging recent offers but advising these had been away from her choice of area and complaining that she was not “sleeping on a bed at present because there are mice in the ceiling and cavity walls scratching all day”.
The landlord replied to the resident on 27 January 2021, recommending she report the mice issue to the repairs team and offering reassurance that it was searching for a new home for her.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it obtained a quote on 27 January 2021 for a one-off rodent treatment, including minor proofing with wire wool and a follow-up after 14 days.
The landlord sent a holding email to the resident on 29 January 2021, adding that it would “arrange for a repairs specialist to attend and specify what interim repairs for the flooring we can carry out” but also check whether this could be determined based on the previous structural engineer visit.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it attended the property on 3 February 2021, noting evidence of droppings in the loft so bait was placed there. It added that there were gaps to skirting boards due to subsidence.
The landlord’s internal emails from early February 2021 show that its surveyor decided that there was “no way of making any interim repairs as it is the whole flat that has a flooring problem, all of the floors need to be taken up and levelled as well as removing the staircase and rebuilding it”. It added that the resident had rejected moving options “due to her not wanting to live on an estate or in certain areas”.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 4 February 2021 regarding her compensation claim for three years of inconvenience and damaged furniture. This response also included comments that:
1. the surveyor had confirmed that interim repairs were not possible and it apologised for the time taken to reach this conclusion;
2. the pest control issue was not part of the original complaint so this was not a subject it would be able to add to the complaint now and it understood this was being dealt with by the responsive repairs team;
3. it may well take several months to find a new property that met the resident’s requirements and it also could not factor the time for this into the complaint as it was not part of the original complaint so she should speak to the lettings team or get a new complaint logged.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 February 2021, advising that she accepted its compensation offer for the three years of inconvenience and damaged furniture but would raise a complaint about the time it had taken to move her and its handling of the pest control issues.
The landlord’s records show that a second pest control visit was completed on 17 February 2021. It noted “no take” of the previous loft bait but that more bait was left where the resident had heard noise and a camera had also been placed.
The landlord’s internal emails show that it recorded on 22 February 2021 that the resident had asked it to log a new complaint as she was dissatisfied with it as no works were taking place and it had not found suitable accommodation for her.
The landlord’s records show that a third pest control visit was undertaken on 3 March 2021. It noted that video evidence of mice had been found, some bait had been taken and more bait had been placed.
The landlord completed a fourth pest control visit on 24 March 2021 when it noted that bait had been topped up as some had been taken and the resident had advised that she heard mice noise over recent days. It added that dead mice had been found in the communal hall.
The landlord’s internal records show that it made a property offer to the resident on 1 April 2021 but extensive works were necessary so she was unsure whether to accept. She wrote to it, raising concerns about whether her furniture would fit into the smaller bedroom of the new accommodation and identifying several repairs that she had found to be necessary, including uneven hallway flooring, a water leak into the garden and a single glazed front window.
The landlord conducted a fifth pest control visit on 9 April 2021 when it noted that one bait tray had been completely cleared but the resident advised they had not heard the mice for 10 days. It recorded that the treatment had been completed but bait had been left in the loft as it would last 6-12 months and cover the winter period when the resident reported mice were likely to return.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 22 April 2021. It apologised for the delay and concluded that:
1. it agreed that a permanent decant was necessary but her property was habitable in the meantime and it was using three search areas to find a suitable address that she could move to albeit this was not easy;
2. it was sorry that a recent option was found to be unsuitable because the resident had expressed a need for two double bedrooms rather than a double and single bedroom;
3. the contractor had made five visits in response to the pest control reports, putting down bait boxes and installing a camera in the loft that confirmed activity there which led to further baiting, after which a follow-up visit found no evidence of mice.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 26 April 2021, clarifying on 2 May 2021 that she remained dissatisfied about the length of time being taken to secure a move for her and seeking a rent reimbursement for the previous six months. She added that the current property offer was not like for like as it was undersized because there was a single and a double bedroom but she was willing to accept it “as long as the built-in storage can be removed to open up the space”.
The landlord’s internal emails show that its lettings and voids teams liaised during May 2021 to agree enhanced void works to the property that the resident had been offered on 1 April 2021. A related voids inspection survey recorded that the two-bedroom ground floor flat would be re-decorated but it is not clear from the report whether it considered the resident’s request for a cupboard to be removed to create more bedroom space.
The landlord sent a holding email to the resident on 28 May 2021, apologising for the complaint delay, and spoke to her on 9 June 2021. It noted that the resident had asked whether void works had been completed (and what works were done), specifically querying whether the built-in cupboard had been removed and if a front window had been repaired. She wrote to it on 11 June 2021, reiterating these concerns and the repairs matters she had reported on 1 April 2021.
The landlord’s internal emails indicate that, during early June 2021, there was a problem in gaining access to the flat that had been offered to the resident but that it reviewed the void works progress in mid-June 2021, estimating they would be completed by 1 July 2021. It subsequently recorded that the built-in wardrobe would not be removed as this would constitute an improvement but the window repair had been done.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 25 June 2021. It concluded that:
1. it agreed that a permanent decant had been necessary and a move was in progress with a scheduled target date of 1 July 2021;
2. there were limits to its complaint investigations so it would not review historic pest issues;
3. an order was raised on 27 January 2021 for a three-stage pest control treatment, followed by four site visits with the final one being on 9 April 2021;
4. on the last visit, it was noted that there had been no evidence of mice for more than 10 days but sufficient bait for up to 12 months had been left in the loft;
5. it could not compensate the resident on the grounds that pests had reappeared as it could not rule out future infestations and proofing possibilities were limited due to the subsidence issue;
6. although a move was pending, the resident could raise a new pest control order if she wished, given she said she had heard scratching in the loft;
7. it could not compensate for the decant concerns given many of the factors around finding an appropriate property offer were outside of its control;
8. it acknowledged that it “could have made it clearer to you sooner that issues with the decant or search for a property would be for another team”;
9. there were delays at both stage one and stage two of its complaints process for which it awarded £40 compensation.

Summary of Events after landlord complaint process

The landlord’s records show that all void works were completed at the prospective new accommodation by 19 August 2021 but it was still in discussion with the resident as she had concerns about a shaking wall, possible damp to the small room and a faulty window opener.
The landlord’s internal emails show that it reviewed the resident’s property offer in late August 2021 and established that no damp had been detected but plasterboard had come away from a wall and there was bowed flooring to the hallway. It noted that it may therefore record this as an unsuitable offer and attempt to find alternative accommodation for the resident.
The resident approached this Service in September-October 2021, advising that:
1. some accommodation offers by the landlord had been unsuitable as they were either in an inappropriate location (as she needed to be close to her unwell mother) or not in a fit condition to let;
2. she had been chasing the decant progress and agreed to move despite the proposed accommodation not being two double bedrooms as she needed;
3. the prospective move mentioned in the final complaint response had been found to be unfit as a bedroom stud wall was not fitted securely, she had concerns about isolation and sound proofing and it was still not ready six months later;
4. her property had a pest problem (mice in her loft and coming through open flooring in her kitchen) which had affected her living conditions and ability to sleep.
The resident recently confirmed to this Service that she ended her tenancy after successfully bidding for alternative accommodation in February 2022. The landlord has advised that the resident ended her tenancy with it on 21 August 2022.

Assessment and findings

Property transfer

The landlord initially undertook an inspection of the resident’s property in early October 2020 to assess whether subsidence-related remedial works were possible. It established that it could carry out works to rectify the condition of the property but that this would be a severe inconvenience to the resident as she would be required to temporarily vacate for three months and all of her possessions would need to be removed. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to consider the impact of this upheaval on the resident and, in these circumstances, decide that a permanent decant was preferable.
The landlord formally awarded the resident the permanent decant status in late October 2020. Its transfer policy obliged it to place the resident in its second highest priority banding (‘A2’) and it therefore acted appropriately in writing to the resident on 26 October 2020, confirming this outcome while also signposting her as to how she may be able to secure alternative accommodation through choice-based letting.
The landlord’s decision letter of 26 October 2020 advised the resident that it would make a single direct offer of accommodation to her. This was not in accordance with its transfer policy as this states that two offers should be made. Nevertheless, both the resident and landlord have referred to multiple offers of accommodation so there was no service failure on the part of the landlord in how many offers were actually made.
Although the landlord and resident have referred to multiple offers being made, this Service has seen no evidence of what accommodation was offered to the resident between November 2020 and April 2021. This is of concern as it indicates that the landlord failed to retain records of what properties it made available to the resident during this period, whether it conducted the three-month review that its transfer policy required it to and what the outcome of this was.
Although suitable accommodation may not have become available during this period, the landlord’s failure to keep records of its attempts to make property offers and conduct a review was inappropriate. This meant that the information on its decant attempts was not readily available when it came to investigate the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s complaint responses were therefore limited on this aspect of the resident’s concerns.
The landlord has however retained a record of a property offer it made to the resident on 1 April 2021 for a two-bedroom flat. Given the resident was in a two-bedroom property already, this was a reasonable offer and one that was in accordance with the landlord’s transfer policy.
The resident raised concerns about the property offer during April 2021 with regard to a variety of repairs needed and a request that the landlord make more space in one of the bedrooms by removal of a built-in wardrobe. However, when the landlord completed its void inspection and made arrangements to enhance the void works being undertaken, it failed to consider the resident’s request for removal of the wardrobe and its stance on this remained unclear by the point the resident’s complaint exhausted its complaints process almost three months later. The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it had addressed each of the repairs concerns that the resident had listed in April 2021. This lack of clarity was unreasonable and will have left the resident uncertain as to whether she should accept the offer or not.
Further, when the landlord issued its final complaint response, it told the resident that the direct offer address would be ready by 1 July 2021. However, the repairs remained incomplete into the following month and the landlord noted in mid-August 2021 that there was a problem with plasterwork falling away from a wall. Although the landlord subsequently indicated that it would not class this offer as a suitable one (therefore allowing it to make further offers to the resident), it was unreasonable that it took more than four months to complete void repairs and that even then, the flat was not in a condition that assured the resident that it was suitable to move to.
Both the resident and landlord have advised this Service that the former found a property to move to during 2022 and her tenancy was therefore ended. This occurred well after the end of the landlord’s complaints process and the events that led to this move are therefore not within the jurisdiction of this investigation.
In summary, the landlord acted appropriately when it decided to give the resident permanent decant status in line with its transfer policy and there is no evidence that it delayed in locating potential accommodation for her to move to. However, it failed to keep records both of the offers it apparently made to the resident and of its quarterly review of her application between November 2020 and March 2021. The landlord also delayed between April-August 2021 in addressing repairs and improvements that the resident had asked it to consider so she could decide whether a direct offer it had made was suitable for her.

Pest control

The resident has reported that she experienced long-term pest problems at her property, contributed to by the subsidence issue. During the period covered by this investigation, the resident made reports on 4, 22 and 26 January 2021 that she could hear mice in the cavities of the property and that this was severely impacting her living conditions as she was unable to sleep in the bedroom.
The landlord’s pest control policy sets out that it should assess the risk of a pest control response within seven working days. In this case, the landlord did not obtain a quote for a pest control treatment programme until 27 January 2021 and failed to assess risk or let the resident know, during the intervening period, how it intended to resolve her concerns. This meant that there was a delay of two weeks in the landlord responding, which was unreasonable given the resident’s description of the long-term nature of the problem and how it was affecting her living arrangements. Some of the resident’s initial reports were received as part of correspondence related to a previous complaint but the landlord should have pro-actively responded to these by raising the necessary work orders and its failure to do so meant that the resident needed to chase progress.
However, once the landlord obtained the quote in late January 2021, it ensured that its contractors attended the property on five occasions between February-April 2021. Although proofing works were established not to be an option due to the impact of subsidence, this programme demonstrated that the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously as it considered her feedback on the location of mice, used investigative tools such as a camera, laid bait and conducted follow-up visits accordingly. These were all reasonable actions to take in response to the resident’s reports.
By the time that the resident’s complaint exhausted its complaints process in June 2021, the landlord’s pest control records indicated that the bait traps had been successful but it also laid bait that it decided would assist should mice return in the winter as the resident predicted. It also advised her that it was willing to raise a new pest control work order should the resident request this. This was a reasonable approach and demonstrated that the landlord remained willing to re-engage with the resident and conduct further treatment if she reported that the pest problem again worsened.
In summary, the landlord contributed to a short delay during January 2021 in responding to the resident’s reports of mice in her property. However, it conducted a reasonable treatment programme during February-April 2021 and offered to continue its involvement when it issued its final complaint response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of:
1. the resident’s property transfer due to subsidence;
2. the resident’s pest control reports.

Reasons

The landlord did not keep appropriate records of its progress in making property offers to the resident, and reviewing her application, between November 2020 and March 2021 and delayed between April-August 2021 in advising her how it would respond to her repairs and improvement requests at a property it had offered to her.
The landlord delayed by more than two weeks in its initial response to the resident’s pest control report in January 2021.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £225, made up of:
1. £175 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the service failure identified in its handling of her property transfer due to subsidence;
2. £50 in recognition of the time and trouble and inconvenience caused to her by the service failure identified in its handling of her pest control reports.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to ensure that it has processes in place so that:
1. it retains full and accurate records of property offers made to residents awaiting a decant;
2. it retains full and accurate records of the three-month reviews that its transfer policy requires it to undertake.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.