Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Peabody Trust (202211630)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211630

Peabody Trust

29 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Its contractors damaging the resident’s possessions during repairs.
    2. The formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. The landlord announced it had merged and become a subsidiary of another landlord on 1 April 2022, with full integration planned by April 2023. Prior to the merger, the subsidiary adopted the main landlord’s policies and procedures.
  2. It is not clear when, but the landlord sent its contractor to carry out repairs to the resident’s balcony and window. The contractors wrapped her sofa and bed in a plastic wrapping which had an adhesive on. When the wrapping was removed, it peeled leather from the bed and ripped the sofa. There is no dispute that the contractors damaged the items and accepted liability.
  3. The resident obtained a quote of £1,188 for repairs to the items on 8 March 2022. There is no evidence to confirm exactly when she raised her complaint, but she contacted this Service on 31 August 2022 after she had not received a response from the landlord.
  4. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 September 2022. It said its contractor had attempted to contact the resident to arrange a time to assess the damaged furniture (which it intended to replace or repair) but had been unable to contact her. It would forward her contact details to its contractor, and asked her to inform it when she had been contacted, and a date arranged for the damage assessment.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 October 2022 and attached the repair quote for the sofa and bed. In the absence of a response, she chased for an update on 8 November 2022 and said she had submitted photographic evidence to the contractor which showed her sofa and bed wrapped in plastic, and the subsequent damage, and its contractor had admitted liability. She said if no update was available, she would escalate the complaint to stage 2.
  6. As no response was received, the resident sought assistance from the Ombudsman again on 16 November 2022. Following this Service’s further intervention, the landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 4 January 2023 and said it aimed to respond in 20 working days.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 3 February 2023, when it apologised for the delay and noted that its contractor had offered £500 to have both items professionally reupholstered, which it agreed was fair. It apologised for the delayed payment and acknowledged it could have done more to follow this up. It said it had learned from the situation and taken steps to stop it happening again by restructuring its team to accommodate more case handlers, which were planned to be in place the following month. The landlord offered £100 to acknowledge its poor handling of the stage 1 complaint, and a further £100 for time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the resident having to chase a response. It explained that, if she remained unhappy, she could contact the Ombudsman.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident replied on 9 February 2023 and said the £500 offer was unacceptable, as it did not cover the estimated cost of repairs. In the absence of a response, she sent a chaser on 31 March 2023. The landlord reoffered £500 on 3 April 2023 and the resident rejected it again the same day.
  2. An internal landlord email of 13 April 2023 said it could not see the documents (invoices) the resident had originally sent in, and escalated the issue. However there is no evidence any further action was taken until 26 April 2023 when it contacted its contractor to obtain a copy of the repair invoices. A further internal landlord email confirmed it contacted its contractor on 22 May 2023, which said staff previously involved had left the business, but it was willing to make a payment of £1,000 as a goodwill gesture by cheque.
  3. The landlord made this offer to the resident on 14 June 2023 and she replied the same day, restating that the repairs estimate was £1,188. In the landlord’s immediate response it confirmed that it would pay the £188 difference by bank transfer.
  4. The landlord emailed its contractor on 19 June 2023 and asked it to send the cheque via special and recorded delivery, but sent another email shortly after and asked it to hand deliver the cheque to prevent further issues. The contractor said it would process the funds via BACS once it received the resident’s bank details, and the landlord requested these the same day.
  5. The landlord reviewed its stage 2 response and sent a follow-up email to the resident on 20 June 2023. It said it had arranged for its contractor to pay £1,000 and apologised for the unreasonable delays. It increased the time, trouble and inconvenience payment to £600, and increased the poor complaint handling payment to £250.
  6. The resident provided her bank details to the landlord and its contractor on 20 June 2023. The contractor paid the £1,000 3 days later via BACS. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 June 2023 to chase the additional £188 as she had not received the payment. The landlord replied the same day and said once she confirmed she accepted the compensation it would process the payment. The resident did so the same day, and the £850 payment was processed on 12 July 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Between May and November 2022, the Ombudsman carried out an investigation into the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme, which allows us to conduct investigations beyond individual complaints to establish whether there is any evidence of a systemic failing within a landlord. This investigation included the landlord’s complaint handling and communication. It reviewed 13 cases brought to the Ombudsman and identified common points of failure and made recommendations for improvement. The report was published in March 2023 and can be viewed here Catalyst Housing P49 Report.
  2. The events in this case took place during and after the period covered by the report and some of the findings of the Ombudsman’s special report are relevant to this case and are referred to herein. However, we have not made any orders or recommendations which would duplicate those already made to the landlord in the Ombudsman’s special report.
  3. Since April 2023, the Ombudsman has investigated and published 60 complaints about the landlord, with less than half now resulting in a finding of some level of maladministration, which suggests the landlord has made improvements.

Contractors damaging the resident’s possessions during repairs

  1. The Ombudsman’s special report highlighted the following concerns which are relevant in this case:
    1. Repair records were absent or inaccurate, which resulted in delays and confusion.
    2. Communication by the landlord was consistently poor, with residents having to chase responses and repeatedly request information.
  2. The landlord’s reimbursement procedure and compensation policy says if one of its contractors is responsible for damage to a resident’s property or possessions, it will investigate, and if upheld, will instruct its contractor to compensate the resident directly. It says if its contractor does not, or will not, make the payment, it will pay in line with its reimbursement procedure and compensation policy.
  3. The resident obtained a quote to repair the damaged faux leather sofa, and reupholster the bed headboard and foot end in March 2022. There is no evidence to confirm whether it was sent to the landlord at that time, but it was sent by email on 4 October 2022 at the latest. The landlord said its contractor had attempted to contact the resident to assess the damaged possessions, but no evidence of these attempts has been provided to this Service. As a result, it is not clear how many attempts, or by what means, it made.
  4. However, the landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the compensation following repairs, regardless of whether the damage was caused by a contractor acting on its behalf. With that in mind, and in line with its own policy, the landlord should have done more to follow up with both the resident and its contractors rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates, which caused her inconvenience and was a failing.
  5. The evidence shows the resident chased the landlord on multiple occasions but did not receive a response, and there were long delays between contact. There is also no evidence the landlord forwarded the resident’s contact details to its contractor as it said it would in the stage 1 response. The lack of response and delays lead the resident to contact this Service and caused frustration and inconvenience. Whilst the resident could have chased for updates more regularly, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to monitor the situation to ensure she had her possessions repaired, or received appropriate compensation, in a timely manner.
  6. The resident did not receive the compensation for her damaged possessions until 12 July 2023, over 9 months later, and approximately a year and 2 months after she had originally obtained the quote. The landlord acknowledged some of its failings in its stage 2 response and said that the length of time it took to pay the compensation was unreasonable. However, the landlord and its contractor eventually did agree to pay the full cost of the repairs, and the landlord paid a further £600 when it reviewed its stage 2 response to acknowledge the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident which was reasonable.
  7. The landlord’s subsequent offer of compensation was within a range the Ombudsman would recommend for long-term failings that have had an adverse impact on the resident. However, the offer was not made until approximately 4 months after the resident’s stage 2 complaint response, and after the Ombudsman’s further interventions. Therefore the landlord failed to effectively put things right at the earliest opportunity, and missed the chance to learn lessons from the complaint outcome at the time of its original investigation.
  8. Had the offer of compensation been made during the complaints process, the Ombudsman would have made a finding of reasonable redress. However, as it did not, it failed to act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles and this amounts to maladministration. Prior to, and during, the complaints process, the landlord’s handling of its contractors damaging the resident’s possessions was poor, and this adversely affected the resident. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is made.

Complaint Handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s special report highlighted issues with the landlord’s complaint handling which included the way it logged, investigated, escalated and learnt from complaints. It found where residents raised formal complaints, these were often not treated as such and left the resident exposed to additional delay, risk and uncertainty. Although the landlord used compensation as a remedy, this was at the expense of the principles of dispute resolution and a genuine effort to learn from complaints, increasing the likelihood of the same or similar issues happening to other residents.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It is not clear exactly when the resident raised her complaint, but it was not reasonable that she had to contact this Service in order for the landlord to issue a stage 1 response.
  3. The resident could have been clearer in the fact she wished to escalate the complaint to stage 2 in her email to the landlord following its stage 1 response. However, her email should have prompted the landlord to at least contact her to provide an update, and there is no evidence it did. It acknowledged her request to escalate the complaint on 4 January 2023, some 38 working days later, and again only after contact from this Service, which was not reasonable.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation being received. It did not issue its stage 2 response until 3 February 2023, after another email sent from this Service on 21 December 2022. The stage 2 response was sent 60 working days after the resident’s email to escalate, and 29 working days after the email from this Service that reiterated she wished to escalate the complaint. In addition to causing the resident further inconvenience by having to contact this Service and chase for a complaint response, the response was sent outside of its own policy timescale, and this was a failing.
  5. With regard to the payment of compensation, it was appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident’s contact details to its contractor as it expected the contractor to make the payment. However, the landlord has overall responsibility for its contractor, and it should have done more to ensure the resident received her compensation in a timely manner, without leaving her to chase compensation through its complaints process.
  6. The landlord originally offered no compensation for its complaint handling, before it offered £100 in its stage 2 response. It accepted some of its failings, and demonstrated it had taken appropriate action to avoid the situation arising again, before it ultimately offered £250 to acknowledge its complaint handling failings.
  7. As above, the landlord’s subsequent offer of compensation was within a range the Ombudsman would recommend for long-term failings that have had an adverse impact on the resident. Again, had the offer been made during the complaints process, the Ombudsman would have made a finding of reasonable redress. However, in view of the delay in the offer being made, a finding of maladministration is made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Its contractors damaging the resident’s possessions during repairs.
    2. The formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.