Peabody Trust (202210611)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210611

Peabody Trust

27 March 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of outstanding boiler repairs;
2. Request for a reimbursement of energy costs;
3. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant in a 1 bedroom property, which is owned by the landlord. The tenancy started in April 2020.
On 21 June 2021, the resident called the landlord and reported that his heating was not working properly. Operatives attended on 16 August 2021, and informed the landlord that the storage heaters needed “adjustments” to make them work properly. They added that the water heater was not working. The contractor was scheduled to complete follow on works on 4 October 2021, but informed the landlord that, due to insufficient fuel in its vehicle, it was unable to attend. Between 9 October 2021 and 14 October the landlord made several attempts to get a different contractor to complete the repair. A contractor tried to call the resident on 18 October 2021 but closed the job after it was unable to reach him. There are no records that the landlord took any further action until it raised the job again on 2 February 2022.
When the landlord rescheduled the repair for 30 March 2022, the resident contacted it on 11 February 2022 to say that the end of March was too far away. He stated that his boiler had not been working properly since he had moved in and, although his heating was working, the hot water issue was ongoing. He added that he had to use the override button to get hot water, which had been costing him nearly 3 times the usual amount in electricity, over the previous 5 months.
On 14 February 2022, the landlord replied to say that it had spoken to its contractor to ask for the appointment to be brought forward. It explained that it was treating his query as an “Expression of Dissatisfaction” (EOD), which was the initial stage of its complaints process. It said it would try and resolve the matter “informally” and would be in touch with him shortly with an earlier appointment date. A contractor attended and completed the boiler repair on 24 February 2022.
On 3 March 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint and stated that:
1. He had wrongly thought his untypically high energy were to do with his energy supplier;
2. In February 2022, the landlord’s engineer had discovered that his water heater had an electrical fault and, as a result, his monthly bills had gone up from £58 to £140 per month;
3. The repair had taken a long time due to missed appointments and other “excuses” the landlord had made;
4. The landlord should take responsibility for clearing the arrears on his energy account, which were over £600.
Between 3 May 2022 and 28 July 2022, correspondence took place between the resident and landlord in order to establish the reasons why the resident’s electricity bills were higher than expected. During this period, the landlord attempted to speak to the resident’s energy supplier on a number of occasions.
On 28 July 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It provided a timeline of the boiler repair from when it was reported on 21 June 2022 to when it was completed on 24 February 2022. It then stated that:
1. Following the repair, he had advised it that his bills were high because the system had not been correctly installed;
2. In order for it to progress his case, it told him it would need copies of bills from the periods before he first reported the fault, when the fault occurred and after it was resolved;
3. He had told it he could not get any bills for his usage before June 2021 because he had been a ‘pay as you go’ customer.
4. He had asked it to call his energy supplier and that he had given his permission for the landlord to discuss his account. However, when it had called, the supplier told the landlord it could only discuss the account with the account holder.
5. The landlord called his energy supplier again, but this time it had added the resident to the conversation. The assistant was able to discuss some aspects of his bill before the call was cut off.
6. During the conversation, the assistant had advised that the resident had carried over a debt of £126.
7. The landlord called the resident and advised that, based on what his supplier had said, the amount he was asking it to reimburse was £500. However, it still had to speak to his energy supplier to clarify why his usage was high during the months he had specified.
8. As the landlord was not the account holder, the supplier would not speak with it. It had therefore asked the resident to contact it and add the landlord to the call. The resident stated he had not wanted to do this because of the nature of his job and the long waiting times to speak to his supplier.
9. During one conversation with the resident, in June 2021, the resident had said that his bill had increased to £900 and that the landlord was liable for this. When it disputed this, the resident later stated that the amount was £626.
10. It had tried again to speak to the energy supplier on 27 July 2022, who stated it could not discuss the resident’s account. Despite asking the resident several times to contact his supplier and add the landlord to the call, this had not happened.
11. It acknowledged that, when the resident raised the repair in June 2021, this was cancelled. Its contractor had attended in August 2021 and carried out some repairs but were unable to complete the works as it was unable to contact him.
12. Whilst it accepted it was its responsibility to carry out repairs in a timely manner, the onus lay with its residents to make themselves available to allow it to carry out repairs.
13. It offered him £100 for the time it took to complete the repair. It acknowledged that, had the contractor attended when the resident had first reported the repair, it may completed it on time.
14. With regard to the resident’s request for reimbursement of his electricity bill, it was not able to make progress with this and had nothing further to add.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 August 2022 and asked for his complaint to be escalated. He stated that he had provided his electricity bills but it had failed to take any further action. The landlord acknowledged his escalation request on 9 August 2022 and sent its stage 2 response on 16 August 2022. This stated:
1. It was sorry to hear about the heating and hot water issues, which may have led to an increase in his energy costs.
2. It was clear there were failures by the landlord’s contactors in June and August 2021. However, in October 2021, it had cancelled the repair as the contractor had been unable to contact him.
3. It acknowledged that it could have made more of an effort to contact him and this was something it had raised with its contract monitoring team.
4. The resident would have been aware the repair was outstanding and should therefore have taken “some responsibility” for contacting it between October and February let it know. It added that, when he had contacted it in February 2022, it had completed the repair in a “reasonable time”.
5. From the bills the resident had provided, it was unclear whether the arrears had accumulated because of general usage being underestimated or whether previous bills were based on estimated or actual usage.
6. After issuing its stage 1 response, it had increased its offer to £300 “to conclude the matter” but the resident had declined this. It added that, even if was proved that the extra usage was due the delay in completing the repair, it would not pay the arrears in their entirety. It said that this was because he needed to take some responsibility for not contacting it between October 2021 and February 2022.
7. Although it admitted its offer did not cover the overall cost, it stated that £300 was “more than reasonable”.
The resident contacted the Service on 18 August 2022 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response and its offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Outstanding boiler repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out a number of different repair timescales. It states that it will respond differently depending on the urgency of the repair. Its response times fall within the following categories:
1. Emergency repairs are those that need a rapid response to safeguard the wellbeing of residents. They are attended to within 4 hours and made safe within 24 hours.
2. A next available repair is a “non-urgent repair”, which is to be completed within 28 calendar days.
3. Where the resident has confirmed that works have not been completed, the contractor must return to correct the defect within 5 calendar days.
4. Specialist works fall outside the timeframe of a responsive repair, and are those that are complex and require a specialist contractor. Those are to be completed within 60 calendar days.
In line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act), the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water. The Act says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
The evidence shows that, on 21 June 2021, the resident reported a fault to his boiler that meant he was unable to get hot water unless he used an override switch. It is suggested by the resident that this function consumed a higher amount of electricity than when the water heater worked correctly. The records show that the landlord completed the repair on 24 February 2022. This represents a delay of around 7 months outside the 28 day timescale for responsive repairs.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord states that its contractors attended in August 2021 but could not complete the works as they were unable to contact the resident. It then said that it had made several attempts to contact him in October 2021 and that the onus lay with “residents to make themselves available”. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that, although it could have made greater efforts to contact the resident in October 2021, he “would have been aware this repair was outstanding” and stated that he had to take some responsibility in contacting the landlord to let it know the repair was still outstanding.
According to the records, the landlord raised the repair after the resident first reported it in June 2021. However, the contractor did not attend because it “advised the job was not correctly raised”. It was not until 16 August 2021 that a contractor eventually attended to the fault. Consequently, it took 65 calendar for a contractor to first attend to the fault, which was 37 days outside the timescale as set by the landlord’s repairs policy.
It is unclear when the contractor had first advised the landlord that it had incorrectly raised the job, or why it took so long for the landlord to reschedule the repair. The landlord was unable to demonstrate it had effective systems in place to track outstanding repairs, or make sure outstanding repairs were not overlooked. That the landlord had not been promptly alerted to the cancelled job indicates a lack of proper repair monitoring. It also indicates poor communication between the landlord and its contractor.
The evidence shows that the contractor who attended on 16 August 2021 could not return on 4 October 2021 to complete the repair because it did not have sufficient fuel in its vehicle. This was outside the landlord’s control. The landlord acted appropriately when it promptly commissioned a different contractor for the repair. However, the records show that the appointment booked for 12 October 2021 was cancelled. It is unclear from the evidence why this happened or who requested the cancellation. Furthermore, there is no record that the landlord had explained why the appointment did not go ahead, either at the time of the cancellation or in its complaint responses.
It is unclear why, when the landlord’s repairs policy states that responsive follow up repairs should be completed within 5 calendar days, it took 53 days before an appointment was made to complete the follow on work. This represents a delay of 48 calendar days. It is recorded that the contractor called the resident on 14 October 2021 to book an appointment but that it closed the job because “there was no answer”.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to show the attempts the contractor had made to contact the resident. However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that its contractor could have made a greater effort. It is therefore not disputed that the contractor’s communication was lacking. Although the Service understands that the difficulty in arranging access with a resident can cause delays, the landlord has not demonstrated that its contractor made sufficient attempts to make contact or that it had acted reasonably by closing the job. This was a failure and further added to the protracted delays in completing the repair.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord had taken any further action to complete the repair until February 2022. In addition, the landlord has not demonstrated that it attempted to contact the resident between October 2021 and February 2022, or provide regular updates on the progress of the repair. It was inappropriate for the landlord to have stated in its stage 2 response that the onus was on the resident to have chased up the outstanding repair from October 2021 to February 2022. The landlord should have had appropriate systems in place to track the repair, and be alerted that it was still outstanding. The resident had already put the landlord on notice by reporting the repair, and the landlord was aware that it was yet to be resolved. A resident should not be expected to remind the landlord about an outstanding repair, or to have to chase it up to rearrange an appointment considering the landlord’s obligations.
The landlord was obliged to ensure a repair is completed and that it takes all the necessary steps to complete a job within a reasonable time, while keeping the resident updated on progress. That the landlord delayed the repair for around a further 4 months, and that it had sought to place the weight of responsibility for the delay onto the resident was unreasonable. The landlord should have put greater emphasis in its response on the fact it had failed to properly track the outstanding repair or liaise effectively enough with its contractors. This would have ensured any delays were minimised. There is no evidence of any effective contract monitoring by the landlord to ensure its contractors were providing a service that was in line with the responsive repairs policy of completing repairs within 28 calendar days. Neither is there evidence the contractor was communicating regularly and effectively with the resident.
When the landlord raised the repair again on 2 February 2022, it was completed within 22 days, which demonstrates the landlord had been more proactive from this point on. However, the evidence shows that, although there were instances where some of the delays were outside the landlord’s control, these were minimal. The records demonstrate that the excessively protracted delays were largely due to the landlord’s lack of action in progressing the repair. It failed to properly track the repair, communicate with the resident or work effectively with its contractor to ensure it completed the repair within its timescales.
The avoidable delays would have caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience while waiting for his boiler to be fixed. This would have been further exacerbated during the winter months, when the landlord failed to take any further action to address the outstanding repair, or to make contact with the resident about the matter..
In its compensation policy, the landlord states that, in assessing compensation, it considers the severity of the time, trouble and inconvenience suffered and whether it may have avoided the situation. It states that it awards up to £200 for “minor disruption”, where there has been “low impact and/or low effort to resolve”. For “moderate disruption”, it awards amounts of between £201 and £400 and it will award between £401 and £600 for instances where there has been a high impact and high effort to resolve the issue, an extended time to complete actions, and failure to communicate or follow procedure. It is clear that in this case, an award that recognises an extended time to complete actions, and a failure to communicate or follow procedure would be appropriate.
The landlord offered the resident £100 in its stage 1 response for the delay in completing the boiler repair. The landlord also accepted that, had its contractor attended when the job was first raised, the repair would probably have been completed on time. The landlord increased the offer to £300, prior to issuing its stage 2 complaint. It then restated this offer in its stage 2 response. However, it did not make clear why it had increased its offer, whether it was in further recognition of the delay or if it was in an attempt to address the resident’s concerns about higher than normal energy costs. That the landlord increased the amount so soon after issuing its stage 1 complaint suggests it had failed to make an initial offer that it felt was reasonable and fair in the circumstances.
It is noted that the landlord did try to put things right by offering compensation. Furthermore, it made efforts to establish what level of contribution it should make towards the resident’s higher electricity costs. However, It failed to properly acknowledge that its poor contract monitoring and lack of communication contributed to the excessive delays. Instead, it sought to shift responsibility for the delays onto the resident. In addition, the landlord has not provided details of any learning from the complaint, apart that it would speak to its contract monitoring team. For the reasons stated above, there was maladministration by the landlord resulting in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord has failed to put matters right during its internal complaints process, and we have therefore made a series of orders accordingly.

Reimbursement of energy costs

It is not disputed that the boiler fault and subsequent delay in addressing the repair may have contributed to higher electricity bills for the resident. However, in order to calculate a fair and equitable reimbursement towards any additional costs incurred, it is reasonable for the landlord to request the appropriate evidence. This is so it can calculate the difference between the costs prior to and after the resident reported the fault, and then make a reasonable contribution. This is so that it is able to put the resident back in the place he would have been had the issues leading to the complaint not occurred.
The evidence shows that the landlord made reasonable efforts to obtain the necessary information from the resident. It had provided him with clear details of the billing periods it required information for. On 3 May 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to ask him for copies of his electricity bills from June 2020 to February 2021, June 2021 to February 2022 and March and April 2022. It is not clear why the resident was unable to obtain the required information from his energy supplier. However, it is evident the landlord was in regular contact with him in an attempt to support him to provide it.
It is positive to note that, when the resident requested that the landlord contact his energy supplier directly, it accommodated his request. This demonstrates that the landlord was taking a customer-focused and proactive approach in trying to resolve the matter. Given there was no relationship between the landlord and resident’s energy supplier, and the landlord was under no obligation to contact it, the evidence shows it made reasonable efforts to support the resident. The evidence shows the landlord had managed on one occasion to speak to the energy supplier in the presence of the resident. It had also attempted to speak to the supplier on a further 2 occasions and offered to attend a 3 way conference call in order that it was permitted to discuss the resident’s account.
It is noted that, although the records show the resident had told the landlord several times that his phone did not have a conference function, the stage 1 response suggests that a 3-way call had taken place. It is not clear when this happened or how it was facilitated. However, the evidence also suggests the resident had difficulties making calls to his supplier due to work constraints and long waiting times. It is evident the landlord was not given permission to discuss the resident’s account with the energy supplier. In addition, it was unable to agree with the resident an alternative solution for this. That the landlord could not obtain the necessary information was therefore beyond its control. The records indicate that the it took reasonable steps in handling the resident’s request for a reimbursement of his energy costs. While, it was unable to resolve the matter during the complaints process, the Ombudsman would encourage the landlord and resident to continue to try and find a way forward in order that the matter is satisfactorily resolved. Should the resident not provide the landlord with the relevant information or facilitate contact with the energy supplier within 12 weeks of the date of the report, there is no requirement on the landlord to take any further action.

Complaint

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy set out a 2 stage process, along with an initial stage, which it referred to as an “Expression of Dissatisfaction” (EOD). This was essentially an informal stage, which gave the landlord an opportunity to resolve a resident’s concern quickly. This would usually be within 48 hours, without the need for a formal response.
The evidence shows that, when the resident first raised concerns about the landlord’s delay in repairing his boiler and the resulting increase in his energy bills on 11 February 2022, the landlord recorded this as an EOD. It acknowledged this by stating that an EOD is the initial stage of its complaints process, where it asks its teams to resolve the matter “informally”. The repair was completed on 24 February 2022, 9 days after it had received the resident’s initial complaint. However, there is no evidence it had provided any explanation for the delay or addressed the resident’s concerns about his energy bills at this point. As such, the landlord had failed to resolve the matter within 48 hours of notification.
This demonstrates that the EOD stage was unnecessary and only served to prolong the resident’s complaint. It necessitated the resident having to make a further complaint on 3 March 2022, in order to access stage 1 of the complaints process. This meant it was not until around a month later that the concerns he had raised were recorded as a formal complaint. It is noted that the landlord has since removed the EOD stage from its current complaints policy. However, this report has taken into account that the application of the EOD caused further unnecessary delays in resolving the complaint and further inconvenience to the resident.
Although the resident sent his stage 1 complaint on 3 March 2022, the landlord did not issue its response until 28 July 2022, which was around 5 months later. The landlord’s complaint procedures state that it will provide a stage 1 response to the resident within 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances, the response can be delayed by up to a further 10 working days. This must be communicated to and agreed with the resident before the 10 working days has elapsed, with an explanation provided as to why further time is needed. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which states that, if an extension beyond 20 working days is required, this should be agreed by both parties.
It is acknowledged that the landlord was in regular contact with the resident between March and July 2022. This was in an attempt to establish the reason behind his higher energy bills. However, there is no evidence it had provided any updates with regard to the complaint. The landlord’s attempts to resolve an ongoing matter should not delay it from issuing a timely complaint response. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took any steps to agree any extensions with the resident or provide any explanation of why the complaint response was delayed. Furthermore, the stage 1 response fails to provide any details on how the resident can escalate his complaint. This is a further departure from the Code, which states that landlords must give, at the completion of stage one, details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
It should be noted that its complaint handling had improved at stage 2 and, as a result the landlord issued a timely final response. However the landlord failed to follow its own complaints process at stage 1, which meant its complaint handling was unnecessarily protracted and the resident was inconvenienced as a result. This amounted to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of outstanding boiler repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s request for a reimbursement of energy costs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £700, calculated as follows:
  1. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing the boiler fault;
  2. £200 in recognition of its poor complaint handling;

This replaces the landlord’s offer of £300 it had made in its stage 2 response. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by the Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears, where they exist;

Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failures identified in this report in line with the Service’s guidance that:
1. an apology should be made by the landlord as a body, rather than an identified member of staff;
2. an apology should acknowledge the maladministration or service failure; accept responsibility for it; explain clearly why it happened; and express sincere regret;
3. where appropriate, an apology should include assurances that the same maladministration or service failure should not occur again and set out what steps have been taken to try to ensure this.

Within 12 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord to carry out a review of the learning from this case and improvements it needs to put in place as a result. This review should include consideration of repairs management, contract monitoring and complaint handling. The landlord is asked to formulate an action plan on how it will address the issues identified. The review and recommended actions should be presented to the appropriate governing body for scrutiny. The landlord to share the outcome of the review with the Ombudsman within the 12 week timescale, as mentioned above.

Recommendations

The resident has told the Service that he continues to receive higher than usual electricity bills and believes this is due to issues with his boiler. Within 4 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord to ask a suitably qualified engineer to inspect the boiler and check for any issues that may be impacting on levels of energy usage. In addition, the landlord to ask the resident if he would like it to refer or signpost him to any appropriate advice and support with regard to his energy bills.
The landlord should reimburse the resident for any additional energy costs he has incurred, as a result of the delay in completing the boiler repair. This is subject to the resident providing the necessary evidence to the landlord. As stated above, should the resident not provide the landlord with the relevant information or facilitate contact with the energy supplier within 12 weeks of the date of this report, there is no requirement for the landlord to take any further action.