Peabody Trust (202128172)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128172

Peabody Trust

17 May 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.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The condition of the windows at the property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a semi-detached house owned by the landlord.  At the time of the complaint, she was 74 years old. In her complaint to the landlord, she stated that she had been raising concerns regarding the windows at the property for a number of years. Two windows downstairs had been replaced with double glazed windows, whilst the upstairs windows remained as single glazed. She explained that unlike the neighbouring houses, the property had three external walls and was difficult to heat due to the poor condition of the windows and lack of insulation. She was concerned about the impact of living in a cold home on her health.
  2. The landlord conducted a heat loss assessment on 18 March 2021. There is no formal report, but photographs were taken of the windows which confirmed that there were single glazed and of an older style. The landlord contacted the resident and advised it wanted to send a surveyor to the property to look at improving the windows. It asked that the resident contact it to arrange a convenient date.
  3. A date was booked for the survey (date unknown) but was moved by the resident to 3 May 2021 due to other commitments. The landlord contacted the resident to enquire why the appointment had been moved so far back, but the resident confirmed this was accurate.  She contacted the landlord again on 4 April explaining that following a recent hospital attendance she was keen for the landlord to undertake the works as soon as possible.
  4. The landlord’s internal checks ascertained that the external decorations at the property were due for replacement 2022-23. Its survey confirmed that the windows were single glazed. In internal emails the landlord requested that the records were changed as it had previously been reported that the windows had double glazing.
  5. The landlord sent a response at stage one of the complaints procedure on 12 April 2021. This stated that upgrade work was scheduled for review in 2022/23 and that a window survey had been booked for 3 May. There were currently no repairs required to the windows. The letter also confirmed that the landlord did not raise repairs for cavity wall insulation as its stock condition team managed the upgrade of all its properties. The landlord advised the resident to contact its stock condition team if she had any further queries.
  6. It is not clear whether the survey booked for 3 May 2021 took place. The resident contacted the landlord again on 4 May 2021 and advised she had contacted the stock condition team as advised but had received no response.
  7. On 5 May 2021 the resident requested that her complaint was progressed to stage two of the complaints procedure. The landlord sought more detail, and the escalation was acknowledged on 12 May 2021.
  8. The stage two investigator contacted the original inspector who confirmed his inspection had related to the street as a whole and its purpose had been to identify any overclad windows. Inspection was solely from outside the properties and at no time did he inspect the resident’s home.  He had noted that some windows in the street had been changed but there were a number of original windows on site which, he believed, were the original early type double glazing.  He had recommended that the windows were replaced in 2024. The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 June 2021 and confirmed that it would need to undertake a survey from inside the property.  A survey was booked for 21 June 2021 but didn’t take place until early July due to a family emergency.
  9. The landlord’s final decision on the complaint was issued on 19 August 2021. This confirmed that the survey had taken place and confirmed that, although the upstairs windows were not in poor condition, they were contributing to the heat loss. The landlord had therefore agreed to try and replace these windows with double glazed windows. The matter was currently with a senior surveyor for approval as the cost was over £10,000. Once approved the landlord might need to seek planning permission and the windows would need to be manufactured.  This was likely to take a number of weeks.
  10. The letter also set out the landlord’s position on installing insulation in the walls of the property. It confirmed that it did not currently have an improvement project for wall insulation. It also noted that the heat loss report only mentioned the windows and therefore this had been the focus of the current improvement.
  11. The letter acknowledged that there had been periods of poor communication and that a mistake had been made regarding the glazing of the windows. It also recognised that the stage one response did not consider the full circumstances of the situation. The letter also apologised for the delay in sending the final response. It explained that the author had been focussing upon actioning the window replacement and delivering her required outcome. It offered an apology and offered £300 compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience and £200 compensation for its complaint handling.
  12. The exact date of the replacement is not known, but the resident confirmed to this Service in October 2022 that the landlord had replaced four windows and the patio door with double glazing and that the house was now much warmer and quieter.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. No evidence has been provided of any complaint or report relating to the condition of the windows prior to this complaint. It is however noted that the resident has stated that she had been complaining about the issue for a number of years.  The focus of this investigation is the landlord’s response to the most recent complaint.

The condition of the windows at the property

  1. The landlord must ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. For a home to be considered ‘decent’ it must provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort and this requires dwellings to have both effective insulation and efficient heating.
  2. The Government’s Met Office website states:

Ideally you should heat your home to a temperature of at least 18 °C. This is particularly important if you have reduced mobility, are 65 or over, or have a health condition, such as heart or lung disease. Having room temperatures slightly over 18 °C could be good for your health…

Overnight, people who are 65 and over or who have pre-existing health conditions may find bedroom temperatures of at least 18 °C are good for their health.

  1. There was therefore an obligation on the landlord to ensure that the property was able to be adequately heated, particularly given the age of the resident.
  2. It is not known to what temperature the property could be heated. The landlord’s first heat loss findings are not clearly detailed. However, upon receiving the resident’s complaint about the windows the landlord took steps to investigate further as was appropriate. It initiated a survey to ascertain the condition of the windows. This was initially scheduled for March/April but was rearranged at the request of the resident to May. It is not known whether this survey took place.   A survey did take place in July and as a result actions were taken to replace the windows. New windows and a patio door were in place by October 2021. This was not an unreasonable timescale.
  3. The landlord has acknowledged that there were a number of errors in its initial responses. There were mistakes in its communications, and delays in arranging the inspection and appointments. The mistakes related to staff belief that the condition of the windows would form part of the landlord’s assessment of the external decorations which was due in 2022/23. This was not accurate as the windows were not due to be considered until 2024. Given that the windows were replaced outside of either time frame there was limited detriment caused to the resident by this mistake.
  4. The resident was caused inconvenience by the delays and by the stage one response asking her to raise the wall issue with the stock condition team. The landlord has recognised this and offered £300 compensation to redress this.
  5. Overall, the landlord has acted appropriately. It has installed new windows and a patio door, increasing the thermal comfort of the property. It also recognised that there were service failures within some of its interactions and has taken sufficient action to put things right for the resident by offering an apology and compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord has acknowledged that it stage one complaint response was not fully resolution focused and didn’t take into account the full circumstances of the complaint and that its stage two response was late. Overall the landlord has acted appropriately as it has acknowledged its failings, offered £200 to redress them and identified learning points to avoid similar failings in future.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has provided reasonable redress to the resident in relation to the condition of the windows at her home.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has provided reasonable redress to the resident in relation to its complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord accepted that its response had taken too long and that this had caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It also noted that there had been communication errors. It offered reasonable redress to rectify its service failures and put things right for the resident. It made an offer of compensation that resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. The landlord accepted that its stage one complaint response was not resolution focused and that its stage two response was late. It made an offer of compensation that resolves the complaint satisfactorily.