Peabody Trust (202200954)

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200954

Peabody Trust

27 October 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.             This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

1. The resident’s request for documents relating to approval of the extension works carried out by the previous owner.
2. The resident’s request for the landlord to carry out remedial works on the extension.
3. The associated complaint. 

Background

2.             The resident is a shared owner with a 25% stake in the property. The resident moved into the property in 2005.

3.             The property is a 3-bedroom end of terrace house.

4.             The resident called the landlord on 3 March 2021 to inform it that the flat roof on the extension to the property had deteriorated with breeze blocks moving and coming away. He asked for paperwork on these works which the landlord committed to providing. He also contacted his buildings insurance. The building insurance company inspected the damage on 5 March 2021. It advised the resident that the damage had been caused by the general failure of the render application and that this was not an insured peril.

5.             The resident chased the landlord for an update on the paperwork and discussing the responsibility for repairs on 13 July 2021. On 19 July 2021, the landlord told the resident he needed to speak with its legal team. The resident contacted the legal team on 20 July 2021, 28 July 2021 and 3 August 2021 but was unable to get an answer about the paperwork or repairs.

6.             The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 August 2021 raising a complaint. He was unhappy with how his queried had been handled. He felt the length of time the process may have added to the repairs that needed to be completed. He was also unhappy that he had not been provided with any paperwork or information about the extension.

7.             The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 March 2022. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint as it had provided incorrect information since no paperwork about the extension had ever been submitted. It offered the resident £1200 compensation, consisting of: £500 for costs and expenditure, £300 for distress and inconvenience, £200 for false promises and mismanaged expectations, £150 for miscommunication and wasted time, and £50 for the delay in its responses. It confirmed however that it would not be completing repairs to the extension.

8.             The resident replied to the landlord confirming that he was unhappy with this response. He felt that the landlord had failed to perform its due diligence when it discovered the extension had been built and that it should complete the repairs, as it had previously committed to in correspondence throughout the complaints process. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 May 2022. The landlord maintained its position, reoffering the resident £1200 as a goodwill gesture. It confirmed that under the terms of his lease, he would be responsible for all repairs. It also advised that the resident could pursue litigation against the previous owner if he wished.

9.             The resident confirmed to this Service on 18 May 2022 that he was unhappy with the landlord’s response and would like for the Ombudsman to consider his complaint. He felt the landlord had not carried out due diligence when the extension was built and was now passing on the responsibility. He was unhappy the landlord had previously said it would complete the repairs and with the landlord’s delay in responding to his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

10.        This investigation will not consider the resident’s comments about the landlord not providing the appropriate permissions for the previous resident when building the extension. This Service does not have the power to amend the terms of a legal agreement made between resident and landlord and these are historical events so would not be within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for documents relating to approval of the extension works carried out by the previous owner

11.        The resident first requested information about the approval of works on 3 March 2021. The landlord does not hold any such information about the works since it appears the extension was completed by a previous resident without seeking authorisation or signing off the work.

12.        The landlord did not provide accurate information to the resident in writing about the paperwork it held for almost a year, until its stage 1 complaint response. Throughout this period, the resident had to frequently chase the landlord for updates.

13.        The landlord also provided incorrect information to the resident whilst the resident was chasing this paperwork. The landlord informed the resident he would need to speak to its legal team on 19 July 2021 who were unable to provide this information, and later to speak to his solicitor on 16 September 2021.

14.        The delays in providing the correct information were failures in service from the landlord. The landlord should consider reviewing its record-keeping policies to ensure it can accurately log what paperwork it holds for residents.

15.        For its failings, the landlord offered the resident £150 for miscommunication and wasted time. The distress and inconvenience of this would also be covered in the £300 offer of compensation it made for these impacts on the resident (together with the further distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling). This amount represents a reasonable offer of redress from the landlord in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which suggests a figure in this region for ‘a failure which adversely affected the resident’.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the landlord to carry out remedial works on the extension

16.        The lease says that it is the resident’s responsibility ‘to keep from time to time and at all times during the term the premises clean and well and substantially repaired maintained and decorated’.

17.        Given this, the landlord would not be expected to carry out any remedial works on the extension. The repair responsibility in this instance would fall to the resident. This means that the information the landlord provided in its stage 1 and 2 responses was accurate, and that the resident would need to make any necessary repairs at his own cost.

18.        The landlord provided the resident with incorrect information on multiple occasions whilst he chased them. It originally said it would undertake the work, even going as far to have a quote produced for this work. The incorrect information provided uncertainty to the resident, creating additional distress and inconvenience.

19.        For this failing, the landlord has provided the resident with £500 compensation for costs and expenditure and £200 for false promises and mismanaged expectations. This is a reasonable offer of redress for the landlord’s failings and the effect these had on the resident. This is within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for severe failings that have had a significant impact on a resident so was proportionate for this situation.

20.        The landlord should consider adding clear information to its repairs policy on the arrangement for repairs for shared owner properties. It should also ensure that all staff have adequate training about its repair responsibilities in shared ownership scenarios. 

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

21.        The landlord’s complaint policy says that it aims to resolve all complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. If a resident escalated a complaint to stage 2, it states residents ‘will be informed of our decision within 10 working days of the appeal date’.

22.        The landlord’s response times were significantly outside of the times specified by its policy. At stage 1, it took just under 7 months to provide a response. This represented a significant failure from the landlord to act within the timescales set out in its complaints policy.

23.        The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 23 March 2022. The landlord took 38 working days to provide its complaint response, once again significantly outside the timescales of its policy.

24.        When making his complaint, the resident requested a copy of the landlord’s complaints policy. He did not receive this until 9 months later despite chasing this on 21 February 2022 and 7 March 2022. This again represented a failure to manage the resident’s complaint correctly.

25.        The landlord’s failure to provide the correct information to the resident and to adhere to the timescales set out in its policy represented a failure in service.

26.        The landlord has recognised its own failure and provided the resident with compensation. It offered £50 for the delays, alongside £300 for the distress and inconvenience of the entire situation. This was a reasonable offer of redress for its failures, and the subsequent distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by these.

Determination

27.        In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for documents relating to approval of the extension works carried out by the previous owner.

28.        In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to carry out remedial works on the extension.

29.        In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

30.        If it has not already paid the resident its offer of compensation, the landlord should reoffer the £1200 payment to the resident.

31.        The landlord should consider adding clear information about repair responsibilities in shared ownership properties to its repairs policy. The landlord should also ensure that all staff members are informed of these and are adequately trained.

32.        The landlord should reply to this Service to confirm its intentions in regard to the above recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.