Peabody Trust (202120337)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120337

Peabody Trust

3 May 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about repairs and damage caused by contractors.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident has held a non-assured tenancy since 1996 and has no vulnerabilities recorded. There were various historical issues raised since the kitchen was renewed in 2016.

Summary of events

3. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 March 2021 and said that ongoing repair issues were affecting her mental health. She stated:

1. The kitchen was replaced five years before. At this time, the cupboard was placed too close to the hob, and it had since warped. A contractor had stuck it back, but it had started to peel.
2. The kitchen sink tap was attached to the side and not the sink. This resulted in a leak and mould growth in the cupboard.
3. The kitchen doors had been replaced at least six times but were hanging off again due to the poor quality.
4. Several jobs had been cancelled in the previous year due to the COVID-19 lockdown and absent contractors.

4. The landlord advised the resident on 5 March 2021 that a complaint had been raised, and a further acknowledgment would be issued. The landlord subsequently said that a further complaint was received on 7 April 2021, but this has not been seen by this Service.
5. There is no further evidence from this time until an internal landlord discussion at the end of May 2021 when the insurance department were asked whether flooring would be replaced as part of the complaint.
6. On 15 July 2021, the resident said she expected the landlord not to renege on the contractor saying they would supply and fit a cooker hood and hob. The landlord discussed internally the resident getting the hob and hood fitted herself, and said it would repair a floor tile in the kitchen as the resident wanted to keep the flooring as it matched the hallway.
7. The resident chased an update for the work starting on 20 July 2021 and the landlord replied the next day that it was unable to get a start date for the work due to annual leave. The landlord said it would calculate compensation once work was completed.
8. The resident asked for an update about the hood and hob and a start date for the work on 4 August 2021. The landlord replied that it would fit the hood and hob as it removed it and would only fit white floor tiles. The floor would be made good as it had been damaged when asbestos sampling was done. The landlord then advised work was due to start on 16 August 2021 for 14 days. A Variation Order (VO) included fitting a kitchen with a maximum of 12 floor and wall units, renewing laminate floor in the living room, the tiled flooring in the kitchen to be replaced, and an electric cooker hood and hob.
9. On 25 August 2021, the resident advised that ceramic tiles in the hallway had been removed by the workmen in error. Internal landlord emails said contractors had also not used dust sheets which resulted in excessive dust in the property.
10. The landlord asked the contractor for a schedule of works for the remaining items as the resident complained about the state of the property and that she subsequently had to stay with relatives. The resident was advised that the contractors had been reminded to be tidy and to use dust sheets, the contractors would replace the hall tiles at their own cost to match the kitchen.
11. The landlord chased the contractor for the remaining works on 2 and 3 September 2021 and internal emails indicated that the landlord would fit appliances purchased by the resident.
12. The resident said she expected the money back for her cooker hood and hob as agreed and asked to escalate the complaint.
13. The contractor confirmed they would be tiling the kitchen and lounge from 6 – 11 September 2021 and that an electrician was to attend at the latest on 9 September 2021 to connect the cooker hood and hob. A further email from the contractor said the resident now wanted the more expensive white tiles throughout to replace the hallway ripped up in error by contractors.
14. Following a chase from the landlord on 13 September 2021, the contractor confirmed with the landlord and the resident that it would attend that day.
15. On 21 September 2021, the landlord told the contractor that it had received multiple emails from the resident which suggested the repair had not been managed in the way requested. It shared the complaint received from the resident on 7 April 2021 and requested an update with a schedule of works. The contractor replied that a site visit was planned for the next day to resolve and conclude any outstanding issues. The Ombudsman can see that this was done on the following day.
16. Two days later, the landlord emailed the contractor with a copy of the resident’s email of 9 September 2021 which said a skirting board in the living room under a radiator that had leaked was mouldy and needed replacing and she wanted confirmation about the flooring in the hallway. The landlord had not agreed redecorating as a gesture of goodwill (GOGW) as it offered a repair service not improvement, so decorating was down to the resident. The landlord said it had asked the contractor for a list of outstanding jobs since 26 August 2021.
17. On 3 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord with photographs described as showing marks on the sofa, the kitchen blinds, a table that was damaged and a broken vase.
18. The resident emailed again on 11 October 2021 and said she needed refunding for a cooker hood and hob, totalling £418.99, plus paint for the living room and additional paint, totalling £503.54. There was a list of items damaged in the house including blinds, she said the kick board needed sealing, shelves were needed in the kitchen, dust sheets were not used, and she had to eat out for eight weeks.
19. The resident provided photographs, details, and invoices for the items in her property which she alleged the landlord’s contractors mistreated and damaged.
20. On 17 October 2021, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint, and the landlord apologised for the delay in the complaint response.
21. On 27 October 2021, the contractors asked the landlord when they could conduct a ‘post inspection’.
22. An internal landlord memo the same day confirmed the following were done out of scope of what it would normally do:

1. Removal and fitting of cooker hood and hob.
2. Installation of flooring in hallway.
3. Renewal of flooring in living room (due to leak, would normally be for contents insurance but heating contractors had already agreed).
4. Installation of resident’s own tap.

23. A stage one complaint response was issued to the resident on 29 October 2021. Within this, the landlord explained:

1. It acknowledged that the complaint was first made on 5 March 2021 but that it had not seen this prior to the resident’s chase on 7 April 2021.
2. The resident was unhappy that the kitchen installed five years before was to a poor standard.
3. Appointments had been cancelled due to covid lockdown and contractor availability.
4. The situation had affected the resident’s mental health and she sought compensation and for the work to be completed.
5. Due to the time elapsed, the landlord could not investigate the fitting of the kitchen, but it was acknowledged the kitchen was not fitted ‘particularly well’.
6. It acknowledged the resident experienced multiple missed appointments and appointments which did not add value, and the work was not completed within a reasonable time.
7. It had tried to progress the work as quickly as possible, and many jobs were completed which the landlord would not normally undertake.
8. It would reimburse the resident for the paint purchased but not for the oven hood and hob.
9. It would not cover personal items damaged as this was for an insurer. The resident was directed to the landlord’s insurance team.
10. The compensation award band for ‘extensive disruption’ allowed a maximum payment of £400 but the landlord used its discretion and awarded £500.
11. To reflect the poor administration of the complaint, the maximum limit for ‘severe failure’ was £100 but the landlord increased this to £150.
12. The additional paint cost of £84.55 was included as a gesture of goodwill, to make a total of £734.55 compensation.

24. The resident replied and said she was not happy with the offer. She explained that this was as:

1. The contractor said the landlord had agreed to cover the hood and hob.
2. The damage to her items would not be covered as they were not accidents but caused by neglect.
3. Repairs were not finished, and she had been told it would be mid-November before they were finished.
4. The floor tiles had not been grouted properly.
5. Work had not been signed off.

25. On 4 November 2021, following internal discussions and correspondence with the resident, the landlord said it would increase the compensation by £209.49 being a 50% contribution to the hood and hob, to make a total of £944.04. The landlord said that if this was not settled on this basis, the GOGW would be deducted.
26. The landlord explained that negligence was for an insurance company to determine, and details of the landlord’s insurance team had been previously given. The landlord’s policy allowed a discretionary decorating award of £25.00 per room but the paint for the living room came to £84.55 which the landlord covered to resolve the complaint fairly and without question.
27. The resident said they had incurred costs of £794.54 for the hood and hob and items broken, and would settle for half of that, being £397.27 instead of the GOGW of £209.49. The resident requested to escalate the complaint and confirmed, upon speaking with the landlord, that she wished for it to review its compensation offer.
28. An internal landlord email discussed that the contractors had taken a very long time to complete the kitchen renewal, but it was eventually finished to a high standard and the landlord felt it had gone above and beyond for the resident and did work outside of the scope. The landlord would not pay for her damaged items and would not cover the cost of installing a hood and hob, but it had offered 50% of the cost for an early resolution, but this had now been withdrawn. Telephone notes were’ poor and vacant’ but there were approximately 200 emails from the resident. There were snagging items outstanding.
29. On 5 November 2021, the landlord said that there would be a delay in the complaint being reviewed due to the number of cases outstanding.
30. Internal landlord emails discussed that a higher sum of compensation had been awarded in this case, as there was a lack of ownership of the complaint and the resident had been distressed, and delays due to the level of work outstanding.
31. The stage two response was issued on 24 November 2021. Within this, the landlord apologised for the delay in repairing the kitchen and explained:

1. The focus of the investigation was whether the compensation offered at stage one was in line with its policy.
2. Stage one offered £500 for time and trouble which was £100 more than its policy, plus £150 for complaint handling. This could not be increased.
3. The cooker and hob would not be paid for by the landlord regardless of what the contractor said.
4. The stage one compensation had increased to bring the matter to a resolution. The landlord had offered £944.00 when the resident said she was out of pocket by £794.51.

32. On 26 November 2021, the landlord explained to the resident that it had reviewed the previous compensation offer made, and had taken the decision to increase this to £1,153.54. It reiterated that this would not reflect a payment for the resident’s personal items.
33. This Service can see from the landlord’s internal correspondence that completion of the outstanding works and snagging items were due to take place on 30 November 2021. It does not appear that it did, however.

Assessment and findings

Scope

34. The Ombudsman has noted the resident’s suggestion that as a result of the landlord’s handling of her repairs, her own mental health was severely impacted. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s assertion, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.

Repairs and damage caused by contractors

35. It was not unreasonable that while the resident complained about the initial installation of her kitchen which took place five years prior, the landlord advised in its stage one response that it could not discuss the matter in detail. Given the length of time that had passed, and with the issues posed by relying on historic records, it would have been difficult for the landlord to have properly assessed this matter. Its complaints policy indicates that it generally will not consider matters which occurred more than six months prior to the complaint being made.
36. This Service would also expect a resident to raise any dissatisfaction with a landlord within a reasonable time of the incident. No evidence has been shared, however, to suggest that a formal complaint was made about the installation of the kitchen prior to March 2021(and which subsequently exhausted the landlord’s complaints process).
37. On raising the matter with the landlord on 4 March 2021, nonetheless, this Service would have expected a prompt response. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 March 2020, demonstrating its awareness of the resident’s request for repair. Despite a further complaint from the resident on 7 April 2021, however, there is no evidence that any action was taken. It appears that it was not until 4 August 2021 that the landlord confirmed for the resident when works would take place and what this would entail. This exceeded the 60-calendar day timescale for programmed repairs, set out in the landlord’s repair policy.
38. It is unclear when and if the landlord undertook an inspection of the resident’s property. It is noted still, that within the landlord’s correspondence, it set out all of the works it intended to undertake at the resident’s property. This included fitting a kitchen with a maximum of 12 floor and wall units, renewing laminate floor in the living room, replacing tiled flooring in the kitchen, and installing an electric cooker hood and hob.
39. Although the landlord advised the resident that the works would take 14 days to complete, this suggestion was not honoured. The ongoing works subsequently resulted in inconvenience for the resident and in her having to accommodate the works, for an unadvised length of time. It does not seem that the landlord was able to clearly set out for the resident what works remained in late August / September 2021, despite chasing its contractor for a schedule and despite arranging for an inspection to take place on 22 September 2021.
40. This Service can see that while the resident set out what she believed to be the outstanding matters on 11 October 2021, there was no confirmation of what would take place. The landlord recognised in its correspondence that there were works remaining, and a number of “snagging” issues, but provided no clear indication of what needed to be done and when it would take place.
41. Although the landlord advised the resident that it would arrange for an inspection of the issues she had reported (such as improperly grouted tiles) to take place within a reasonable time, following the resident’s dissatisfaction that this could be delayed until mid- November 2021, no inspection was undertaken. The Ombudsman can see that an inspection was still being chased by the end of November 2021.
42. On considering the landlord’s complaint responses, however, this Service can see that it did recognise that a number of things had gone wrong. While the landlord had not considered matters as far back as five years, it had accepted on inspection of the property, that the kitchen had not initially been installed particularly well. The landlord also did not dispute that there were several delays, extensive disruptions to the resident (including the damage to tiles and mess created at the property) and missed appointments.
43. In its stage one response, it subsequently made an offer of compensation in recognition of this. An offer of £500 was made in recognition of the extensive disruptions and an additional £84.55 as a goodwill gesture to account for the cost of paint (which it was not responsible for, as explained in Section 2.4 of the tenancy agreement). In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this award was proportionate. It is noted that this was above what the landlord’s compensation policy suggests it could award.
44. It was also reasonable that the landlord undertook further works, which it was not responsible for, and which was out of the scope of its usual service. This demonstrated a desire to resolve matters to the resident’s satisfaction and to restore the resident’s property to a condition which she could enjoy. This included the installation of the resident’s hob and extractor fan hood, and agreeing to renew and install the resident’s flooring.
45. While the resident expected the landlord to have included a reimbursement of her damaged items within its offer of compensation, the advice provided by the landlord at this time was appropriate. It is common practice for a landlord / contractor to resolve matters involving damaged goods through its insurer and outside of its complaints process. The landlord’s complaint policy also reinforces this, indicating that it will not deal with matters relating to claims for damage to personal belongings under its complaints process.
46. It is noted that the resident also expected the landlord to provide her with a reimbursement of the cost of the cooker at this time, as she alleged that this had been agreed. In the absence of proof of this agreement, however, this Service is unable to see that the landlord would have been obliged to do so. Rather, the landlord’s repair policy and the tenancy agreement indicate that items such as cookers are the responsibility of the resident. In light of this, and in the absence of evidence of the agreement, the landlord’s offer on 4 November 2021 to award £209.49 toward the cost went above and beyond its requirement.
47. Although the remedies proposed by the landlord at stage one were proportionate, as there was still outstanding work to complete (including the snagging), an outstanding inspection and no agreed date for when matters would be completed, in the Ombudsman’s view, it was not enough to fully put matters right. The landlord acknowledged in the stage one response that the resident sought both compensation and the completion of the kitchen works to resolve the matter yet was silent on this matter. The landlord also failed to comment on this within its stage two response.
48. Following later discussions with the resident, it was fair that the landlord increased the award of compensation by a further £209.50. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was satisfactory in recognising the resident’s experience up until this time.
49. The Ombudsman also appreciates that within the resident’s stage two escalation request, she expressed particular concern with the landlord’s offer of compensation. The landlord therefore took the decision to focus its response on this matter and its position. This was not unreasonable.
50. Still, however, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have undertaken a further inspection of the resident’s property, to have set out the specification of works outstanding, and to have proposed a timescale for addressing the necessary work. This would have been particularly reasonable given that the completion of the kitchen was the overarching driver of the resident’s complaints. The resident expressed that work had not been signed off as complete.
51. While this Service can see that works / snagging remained outstanding after the time of the landlord’s final response, the list of works remained unclear. At minimum, the landlord should have set out the specific details of what it would address and when it intended to complete this by (and honoured the new deadline). Its failure to do so, and to proactively manage the resident’s expectations, has subsequently been considered a Service failure. While the compensation was appropriate and proportionate, this was not enough to put things right.
52. For completeness, as the resident set out in her correspondence on 11 October 2021 that she had not been supplied with a sufficient amount of shelves, the landlord also should have responded to this matter within its complaint response. Its failure to do so was inappropriate. This Service has seen later correspondence, however, and is satisfied that the landlord explained to the resident that as the new kitchen did not come with additional shelves, this would be deemed an improvement and not a repair.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

53. Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it explains that it will respond to a resident’s complaint at stage one within 10 working days. Contrary to this, however, despite acknowledging the resident complaint on 5 March 2021, and also receiving further complaints on 7 April 2021 and on 17 October 2021, the landlord failed to provide a stage one response until 29 October 2021. This was inappropriate and significantly exceeded the expected timeframe.
54. In the landlord’s stage one response, however, it appropriately recognised that it had mismanaged the resident’s complaint resulting in a significant delay in its response. As such, an offer of £150 compensation was made to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s view, given that the landlord was still communicating with the resident and working to resolve the matter, this award was proportionate and was satisfactory in resolving the complaint.
55. In seeking to improve its service, it might have been reasonable for the landlord to have set out how it would endeavour to improve its complaints handling in the future. In line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles (to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes), an indication of how the landlord intended to improve the communication with its contractor would have been suitable. The absence of this has not been considered a service failure, however.

Determination (decision)

56. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about repairs and damage caused by contractors.
57. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, it has been determined that the landlord made an offer of redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

Repairs and damage caused by contractors

58. The Ombudsman is satisfied that by the time of the final response, the landlord had fairly recognised the resident’s experience and had taken some reasonable steps in the right direction. Its offer of compensation was fair, and the resident was appropriately advised on how she could make a claim for the damages she had suggested. This Service has made no comment in relation to the alleged agreement with the cooker hob and hood. It has been noted, however, that by the time of the landlord’s final response, it had not confirmed with the resident (despite her concerns) the works that remained outstanding for completion, and the specific date in which this would be completed. This Service is aware that matters continued to be pursued in 2022. Excluding any new issues raised after the time of the complaint, the landlord therefore failed to do enough to put things right.

Complaint handling

59. The landlord failed to act in accordance with the complaints policy, to honour the timeframe set out within it, and to assure the resident that her complaint was being taken seriously until it offered its complaint response. This Service is satisfied, however, that it recognised this within its stage one reply, and made an offer of compensation which recognised the extent of its failure. This was satisfactory in resolving the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

60. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident an additional £150in recognition of its failure to establish and confirm with the resident what works remained for completion and when these would be addressed.
61. As it remains unclear what works were outstanding following the installation of the new kitchen, the landlord should also arrange for an inspection of the property to be undertaken and should agree a specification of works with the resident, should outstanding issues be identified. The landlord should write to the resident to arrange this within four weeks of receiving this determination and should address any works identified within eight weeks of this determination.
62. The landlord will need to share a copy of its letter, the findings of its inspection, and a record of any completed works with this Service in order to demonstrate compliance with the above order. It should also provide this Service with proof of payment within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

63. If it has not done so already, the landlord should make the payment of £1,153.54 previously offered to the resident.