Peabody Trust (202207942)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207942

Peabody Trust

26 February 2024

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

The complaint is about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy on a 2-bedroom house owned by the housing association landlord. The tenancy agreement began on 2 February 2022.
Shortly after moving into the property, the resident wrote to the landlord “a letter of refusal” for the property on what she said were health and safety grounds. The resident said the letting officer ‘forced’ her to accept the property on the initial viewing. She asked that the landlord send a surveyor to inspect the condition of the property, which required a ‘huge’ amount of work:
1. There was a leak in the main bedroom from the roof above.
2. The wooden windows were rotten, allowing draft into the property; architraves to internal doors needed replacing.
3. The walls had not been replastered. She had tried to fit curtains, but the wall plugs and screws slipped right through the “rotted concrete walls;” Black mould was growing through the paint.
4. The staircase banister was being held by 4 cm plywood.
5. The floorboards were uneven and infested. As a result, she was not able to fit laminate flooring. She had been told that the only viable option was to carpet the property. She asked the landlord to provide the carpet.
6. The toilet did not flush properly.
The landlord sent its first surveyor on 17 February 2022. However, the resident was dissatisfied with the surveyor’s opinion. On 16 March 2022, the resident formally complained to the landlord, reiterating her concerns about the property. In response, the landlord sent a different surveyor to inspect the property on 23 March 2022. The surveyor recommended the following:
1. The toilet cistern took ages to refill – a new siphon needs to be fitted.
2. Architraves were cracked/broken, poorly filled, and needed replacing; the bedroom door was poorly fitted.
3. The resident’s concerns about the staircase had been noted. However, the stairs, steps, and banister were in good condition.
The landlord sent its first response on 30 March 2022 and said it would follow the surveyor’s recommendations. It would additionally fit curtain batons in lounge areas. It said it was sorry if the resident had expected more work to follow from the surveyor’s visit. It noted the resident’s disappointment that the property did not have carpets. However, it said that floor covering was not part of its lettable standard.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 31 March 2022 and disputed the surveyor’s report. She said that the property was far from lettable. Given the difference between the surveyor’s description and the resident’s description of the property, she requested a new surveyor to come around. The resident said:
1. All the windows had been dismantled to be sanded down as they are rotten to the core. Usually, this type of job would be done in a workshop. However, as she had already occupied the property, operatives were forced to do this job there, and she was forced to live around it.
2. Draining Services had attended the property earlier that day for an emergency call-out because the toilet did not flush.
3. The roof was still leaking, and scaffolding would need to be erected to repair the roof. The bedroom was damp in conjunction with the cracked rotten windows, resulting in ill health and increased heating bills.
4. Weak banister supported by plywood because it was not deemed safe without it. She said it was weak and “certainly needed replacing”.
5. Mould was coming through the painted walls.
6. She was “well aware” of the lettable standards. The condition of the floorboards had limited her choice of flooring, and therefore, the landlord should pay for the carpet to be installed.
7. The concrete behind the walls was severely rotten, so securing curtains to the walls was impossible.
The landlord responded on 1 June 2022 and said it was clear that the property had repair issues when the resident had initially moved in. The voids surveyor attended to inspect the property and reported on four issues that he believed needed attention. However, the landlord was ‘mindful of the resident’s safety concerns and therefore, it would:
1. Send a third surveyor to inspect the dampness and mould and the condition of the stairs, despite the previous 2 inspections that had not identified concerns.
2. It had a work order for the roof repair. The scaffolder accidentally smashed a glass in the resident’s house. This was replaced, but operatives could not gain access as the resident had cancelled the job.
3. The repair notes stated that contractors had attempted to arrange appointments to repair but that the resident did not allow access and was ‘impolite’ with staff on the phone. It asked the resident to work with it to allow these works to progress.
4. It offered the resident £300 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused as well as for its handling of the associated complaint.
The resident approached this service on 18 July 2022. She stressed that the property was a “death trap” and needed a “huge” amount of work. The resident notified this service in February 2024 that most repair issues had been rectified. To resolve the complaint, she would like reimbursement of the money she paid to carpet the property and other costs she had already spent on refurbishing the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her health has been noted. It is beyond the expertise of this service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the health of the resident’s family. However, where a failure on the landlord’s part is identified, this service can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Policies and procedures

The landlord repairs policy sets out a target response time:
1. “Next available” – A non-urgent repair to be completed within 28 days.
2. Programmed / specialist works – Works that require additional time, such as window replacements, roofing works with scaffolding, and damp works – To be completed within 60 days.
3. Recall works that have failed to pass a quality inspection or where the resident has confirmed that works have not been completed; the contractor must return to correct the defect within 5 days.
4. Emergency – To be attended to and completed within 2 hours to 24 hours.

The condition of the property at the start of the tenancy

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
The resident initially wrote to the landlord explaining her dissatisfaction with the condition of the property on 13 February 2022. In response, the landlord arranged for a surveyor and the contractor who had carried out the works to return to the property on 17 February 2022. The landlord’s repair policy says a recall repair should be attended to within 5 days, and therefore, the landlord acted appropriately here.
The surveyor reported that no major defects were noticed except for a few items, which “were minimal and comply with the landlord’s lettable standards”. The surveyor noted that the resident had a decorator who had painted the walls and windows. This made it harder to open the windows. The surveyor noted a defect sill on a window and a further defect on another. They had raised a window overhaul, which took place on the week of 4 April 2022. This was in accordance with the time set by the landlord’s repair policy for ‘Programmed/specialist’ works, and therefore, the landlord acted appropriately here.
The resident complained on 16 March and said:
1. The roof condition was leaking into the bedroom.
2. The windows were cracked and drafty.
3. The walls had not been replastered; the concrete was rotten right through.
4. The stairs were a health and safety risk.
5. The floorboards had cracked and had holes in them.
The landlord responded appropriately by arranging for another surveyor to inspect each of the resident’s concerns. The surveyor visited the resident’s home on 23 March 2022 and recommended a set of works. He summarised the visit as follows: “The extent of the void works was mostly cosmetic, and the tenant’s expectations are high; she also advised she has found it hard to fit curtain rails because of flaky walls. She has decorated already, but I will issue for curtain batons to be fitted along with the new architraves”.
The landlord confirmed it would fully adopt the surveyor’s recommendation in its first complaint response. However, it did not acknowledge nor apologise that there were outstanding repair issues at the start of the tenancy, which were identified on the void inspection, such as the blocked toilet. This was a failure by the landlord.
Following the complaint response, the landlord was obliged to do the things it said it would. These were:
1. The leaking roof – this job required scaffolding to be erected; according to the landlord’s repairs policy, this should have been done within 60 days. This service understands it was attended to within the required time. Scaffolders accidentally broke a glass window in the resident’s home on arrival. This was repaired. However, the resident cancelled the job, stating that the contractors were loud and unprofessional.
2. The condition of the windows – this job was identified during the post-void-work inspection. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, this should have been done within 60 days, and the landlord acted appropriately by carrying out the job on the week of 4 April 2022.
3. The condition of the walls – The landlord acted appropriately by sending its qualified operatives to inspect the walls. The surveyor did not identify dampness or mould on its visit, although it noted that the resident had already decorated the walls. In response to the resident’s reports of ‘rotted concrete,’ it said it would fit curtain batons in the lounge area. According to its repairs policy, the landlord had 28 days to do this job, which should have been completed by 29 April 2022. The landlord took a resolution-focused approach here and acted appropriately.
4. The condition of the staircase – this was the second qualified surveyor that confirmed the stairs were safe and did not pose a risk to the resident. The landlord was entitled to rely on its operatives’ advice.
5. The condition of the floorboards – The qualified surveyor inspected the floorboards and was satisfied that these were safe. The landlord reiterated that it would not provide flooring, which aligned with its lettable standard. There is no evidence that the resident was told before accepting the move that the property’s subfloor would be compatible with her choice of laminate flooring. Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord acted unfairly or failed to follow its policy or good practice.
6. The condition of the toilet – The surveyor found it took a long time for the cistern to fill with water. The landlord said it would replace the siphon to the toilet’s cistern. This was raised on 30 March 2022. According to its policy, the landlord had 28 days to do so by 29 April 2022.
According to the evidence, the landlord raised the work order for the repair jobs with its contractor. The contractor contacted the resident on 25 March 2022 to book the works; it then emailed the landlord and said it had called the resident, who was “very rude, swearing, shouting and hung up the phone”. Following the resident’s escalation of her complaint to stage 2, the landlord contacted the contractor on 5 April 2022 to ask whether the repair jobs had been booked with the resident. The contractor responded that, as it had said on 25 March 2022, the resident was rude and hung up the phone it took no further action. The landlord responded to the contractor and said it would cancel the work order for the jobs as the resident had escalated her complaint to stage 2and that the resident could raise the repairs using its responsive repair service.
The landlord’s complaint policy says: “All actions agreed to be completed within a complaint’s response will be monitored and followed through to resolution with updates to the complainant provided as and when needed.” Evidently, the landlord failed to follow through with the resolution of the repairs. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide guidance to the contractor and the resident following the contractor’s email of 25 March 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord had tried to carry out the repairs and de-escalate the dispute. Instead, and in spite of its complaint policy, the landlord cancelled the jobs and undermined its previous efforts to resolve the complaint. This was not a resolution-focused approach, and consequently, it compounded the distress for the resident and damaged the landlord/resident relationship.
The repair jobs were raised again during the landlord’s final complaint response on 1 June 2022. Therefore, the landlord caused a delay of 2 months by cancelling the work order. This was not appropriate.
In its final response letter on 1 June 2022, the landlord told the resident it had received reports that she had been “impolite when communicating” with operatives. It asked that the resident work with its contractors to allow the works to progress. It said it was ‘mindful’ of the resident’s safety concerns and would send another surveyor to inspect the resident’s property, as the resident required. The landlord acted appropriately here.
A third surveyor inspected the property on 26 August 2022. The landlord received a report that this visit had to be terminated “due to the resident’s behaviour.” The surveyor said, “I explained that I am a practical person and would be offering an unbiased opinion on my observations.” These were:
1. The floorboards could not be inspected due to the carpet and underlay. He had noticed an uneven area; overall, he was satisfied that the floor was sound and did not require work.
2. He could not see signs of dampness or mould as the property had been decorated. He inspected the “rotted concrete” and reassured the resident that this was soft plaster and that bonding timber to the wall would resolve that issue. He reiterated that the landlord had agreed to fit curtain batons to the resident, which would solve this matter for her.
3. He disputed that there was an issue with the windows. However, there were issues with the internal doors’ architrave.
4. He confirmed that the stairs and banister was safe, and there was a timber cross brace in the middle for added strength, and he had not identified a safety issue.
5. He said most of the resident’s complaints were about cosmetic issues. The resident accused him of lying, and the visit was terminated.
Operatives were booked to attend the resident’s property on 4 October 2022. However, the resident was not present. The resident confirmed she could facilitate the work on 13 October 2022. When operatives reattended on 13 October 2022, the resident was home but had refused access, advising that it was not a convenient time. The landlord received a notification from operatives that “they would not go back to the resident’s address”.
Overall, the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns appropriately. When the resident disputed the finding of the first surveyor, the landlord sent another surveyor. At stage 2, it sent a third surveyor to inspect the resident’s home. All operatives identified similar issues; they have agreed that some of the repairs raised by the resident needed to be done, but others met the landlord’s lettable standards. The landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of its operatives.
In its final response letter, the landlord acknowledged that the resident did not have a “positive experience” and apologised for it. The landlord accepted that some repair issues should have been identified during the post-void inspection. It also recognised that its initial response was ‘brief’ and did not demonstrate that it investigated the complaint based on the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, the landlord offered the resident £300 in compensation. This equates to £150 a month for the delay the landlord caused by cancelling the outstanding repair jobs until these were raised again by its stage 2 complaint response.
At stage 2, the landlord took several steps to put it right: it apologised, offered compensation, agreed to send a third surveyor to inspect the property, and demonstrated a commitment to conduct the work by persistently trying to schedule the contractor to attend the property. The landlord acted appropriately here.
The landlord appropriately identified learning from the complaint. It said it would liaise with the voids team to review their post-inspection process to ensure repairs are better identified before being let. It also said it would review its complaint policy to ensure future responses at stage one of the complaint process reflect the standard expected by the landlord.
It is, however, important to acknowledge that despite the landlord’s reasonable package of redress, the property’s condition at the start of the tenancy caused distress and inconvenience. Some of the repairs should have been identified and repaired and during the void inspection. They were not, and this had caused distress and inconvenience. This was later compounded by the landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 1.
The landlord has taken appropriate steps to acknowledge and apologise for its shortcomings. It investigated the resident’s concerns and stage 2, and evidently tried to gain access to the resident’s home to complete the required work. It also offered an appropriate level of compensation. In all the circumstances of the case, the landlord’s package of redress resolved the complaint reasonably.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b), the landlord has offered redress to the resident, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy, reasonably.