Peabody Trust (202213300)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213300

Peabody Trust

28 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, 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 residents’ reports of a leak in the communal hallway.
The Ombudsman investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The residents live in a residential building owned by the housing association landlord. The building contains 6 properties. The complaint was brought to the landlord as a group complaint from the residents of 5 properties in the building.
On 25 October 2021, at around 10:30 am, the residents reported an uncontainable leak on the ground floor near the communal entrance. The landlord said operatives would attend the site within 4 hours. Operatives attended at 7 pm that evening, advised it was too late to do the job, and said they would return the following morning. However, operatives returned at 4:30 pm the following afternoon and said the leak was under the communal electricity cupboard for the block, and they would need an electrician to isolate the main power supply and a carpenter to lift the floorboards so they could repair the leak. They could not do this at that time. They isolated the water supply for the block and left the site.
On 27 October 2021, the landlord delivered 10 litres of water for each property in the block. Meanwhile, the landlord said it had arranged to meet the electricity supplier on-site to isolate the power so that operatives could work safely.
On 29 October 2021, operatives started to work to trace the leak. As this was a Friday afternoon, they advised that they could not get the part needed to repair the leak before Monday. One of the residents’ relatives was a qualified plumber whom the residents called to the building to assist. The plumber attended with the spare part, and operatives carried out the repair and restored the water supply.
The residents made a formal complaint on 3 November 2021 and said it has been a “total shambles from start to finish”. The residents requested that:
1. The situation was ‘fully investigated’ to understand why it took so long to be completed and why it wasn’t treated as an emergency from the outset.
2. Why the contractor could not get the part on a Friday, but the resident’s relative did?
3. One of the residents overheard a call from the operative’s phone speaker telling him that the resident had contacted the CEO’s office advising operatives arrived at the building at 11:20 in the morning and, therefore, operatives should not tell her anything, as she had “twisted things”. The resident said this was “totally inappropriate and unacceptable” as she had been in touch with the contact centre but was ‘getting nowhere’. Totally ‘exasperated’ by how this had been handled, she then contacted the CEO’s office.
Throughout the complaint process, the landlord said:
1. It had failed to attend within 24 hours. On 27 October 2021, the water to the block had to be switched off, and it provided bottled water. The plumbers needed assurance for their safety; therefore, they contacted the energy supplier, who attended on 28 October 2021. Once it said it would be safe to do the work, operatives were on-site working. The water was reinstated on 29 October 2021. It “had tried to communicate effectively” with residents.
2. Its contractors were aware that ‘under no circumstances’ should they use materials provided by residents. The decision to use parts supplied by the resident was a ‘quick decision’ the operatives took, as they also wanted the issue resolved without any further delay.
3. It was ‘sincerely sorry’ that “everything that could go wrong did go wrong”. It was “in the midst of major service improvements and adjustments to the way it managed repair work”. It carried out a weekly ‘contract meeting’; progress would “definitely be made, and the residents would see these changes soon”. Whilst it could not guarantee that there would not be a leak in the future, it could assure the residents that measures were in place to ensure such incidences are treated with the ‘highest sensitivity’.
In its final response letter on 13 June 2022, the landlord improved its offer of compensation from £45 to £355 per property, broken down to £200 in compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience; £150 in compensation for the distress caused by its complaint handling; and £15 for loss of water, which equates to £5 per day as per its compensation policy.
The residents contacted this service on 21 September 2022 and said the landlord provided reassurances in its complaint response letter that it would learn from the case, but just a few weeks later, the leak reoccurred, the landlord shut the water for up to 4 days at a time. Residents had to lift the floorboards to help operatives attend to the leak, which took 40 days to repair. They said the landlord did not do what it had said it would do as it did not learn from the outcome. To resolve the complaint, the residents would like the landlord to have operatives with the correct skillset, tools, and parts to complete the repairs, and it should respect that the building is home to the residents.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of a leak in the communal hallway

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 residents. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the residents, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
The landlord’s repairs policy reflects its repair obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair and in working order installations for the supply of water, sanitation, space heating, and hot water.
It is accepted that in emergencies, landlords may have to isolate the water supply unannounced. Such as in this case, where a burst pipe splashed water into the main electricity cupboard in the communal hallway. Both the residents and the landlord agreed that this was an emergency situation. The landlord’s response in practice, however, did not reflect the urgency of the situation.
On 25 October 2021, the residents reported a leak in the communal hallway at around 10:30 am. The landlord confirmed in its complaint response that the repair had been given the highest priority, meaning operatives should have attended the building within 4 hours. The landlord attended over 8 hours later at 7 pm. This was a failure by the landlord. On arrival, operatives said it was too late to start the work and they left the site.
The landlord has an out-of-hour repair service with an attendance target of between 2-4 hours. This did not happen and this was another failure. Operatives should have arrived the following morning and the resident pursued the repair. However, operatives returned to the site on day 2 at 4.30 pm, repeating the mistake from the previous day. Operatives said it was too late, so they shut the water and left. If the water had to be isolated for safety reasons, this should not have taken 30 hours.
In its complaint response, the landlord said it had to shut off the water on day 3, and it delivered bottles of water. This was incorrect. It shut the water on day 2 at 4:30 pm and delivered 10 litres of water per property on day 3 late at night. While it was appropriate that the landlord delivered bottled water to the resident, this should have been done in conjunction with isolating the water to the block, particularly in light of the fact this was during the covid 19 pandemic, and the residents could not wash their hands, drink water, flush the toilet, shower, or heat their homes.
On day 4, the landlord said it needed to call the electricity provider to attend the building. This was legitimate, and the delay on this day was out of the landlord’s hands. However, it is unclear why the landlord had to wait 4 days before calling the electricity provider to attend, as it had all the information available to it on day 1. It shows a lack of oversight and supervision by the landlord, which would prove to be a recurring theme in this complaint. The electricity provider attended at 3 pm and confirmed it was not required to be on-site. The landlord should have had its operatives on site ready to resume work at this point. This did not happen.
On day 5, operatives returned to the site at around 11 am and started to work. However, they advised they did not have the correct fitting to repair the pipe, and since this was on a Friday afternoon, they said they could not get the part until the following Monday. This was not appropriate. The landlord had several opportunities to acquire what it would need in order to complete the repair at the earliest opportunity, and it should have been prepared.
The residents called on a relative plumber who attended the building, checked what was needed, purchased the part at a nearby store, and gave it to the landlord to fit. Evidently, the landlord failed to have oversight of the situation, and consequently, it had failed in its duty to repair and keep in-repair, which caused the residents a great deal of distress and inconvenience.
Furthermore, on day 5, the resident contacted the CEO’s office and said operatives arrived at the site at 11:20 am, but she thought they should have been there at 9 am ready to complete the repair. The landlord then called the operative’s mobile phone, which they answered on loudspeaker. She then overheard the voice on the phone warning operatives not to tell the resident anything as she had “twisted things”. This was not appropriate. It was unprofessional. This service has seen further evidence that the contractor had referred to other residents as “overly annoying” that “got in the way”. There is no evidence the landlord addressed the attitude of its contractor. The landlord aggravated the situation further by not addressing these points in its complaint response despite the residents clearly asking for it to do so.
The residents said the landlord failed to understand that a building was not just a building; it was also a home to its residents, and it should communicate respectfully. After the leak was repaired, operatives attended the site and shut the water to the block unannounced for 40 minutes. On another occasion, the landlord attended unannounced, knocked on residents’ doors and said they either had to leave their properties immediately or would not be able to go outside for 2 hours as it was going to repair the floor in the communal hallway. The landlord did not produce a work schedule, and as a result, its actions were sporadic, resulting in distress, inconvenience and a breakdown of trust between the residents and the landlord.
It is clear that the landlord’s repair records were not kept up to date to allow for effective management of the repairs. The landlord kept asking residents to send pictures to ascertain the repair’s status and operatives’ performance, at times confusing what needed to be done and when. Landlords should accurately record the nature of the repair and any reports, visits, inspections, and investigations. Without this crucial information, the landlord could not reasonably demonstrate that it had effectively managed the situation, and coordinated operatives with the correct skills, tools and parts, in the right place at the right time.
The follow-on works were completed nearly 4 months later, in February 2022, which took an unreasonable length of time. In May 2022, the landlord wrote to the residents to ask whether this had been completed. Due to a lack of proper oversight and inadequate records that failed to accurately reflect the reality of the situation, the landlord was unable to identify what went wrong or learn from the situation. As a result, it made the same mistakes again.
A few weeks after its June 2022 stage 2 response, the leak reoccurred on 13 August 2022. It took the landlord 2 days to attend. It arrived on day 3 at 6:40 pm, shut the water, and left. The landlord delivered 10 litres of water per property on day 4. The landlord’s plumber arrived on day 5 without a carpenter, and residents had to assist in lifting the floorboards. The landlord did not have the correct fitting, so a temporary repair was implemented. The pipe was still leaking, but the water was partially restored to the properties. 2 weeks later, one of the residents returned from a long holiday. He saw the leak and reported it to the landlord. The landlord attended the building, shut the water and left.
There is no evidence that the landlord took the opportunity to meaningfully consider its service failures in this case and what it could do to avoid similar occurrences in the future. This was a missed opportunity to learn. The assurances provided did not hold any value and caused damage to the relationship between the landlord and the residents, further causing distress and frustration to residents.
Overall, there were significant failures in the landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of a leak in the communal hallway, particularly in the way it coordinated various trade operatives. The landlord failed to communicate effectively on all levels: internally, with its contractors and with residents. It failed to learn from the outcomes. As such, it did not respond to the residents’ complaints in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
For its failure to repair the leak in the communal hallway, the landlord offered residents £200 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and £15 for water loss as per its policy. Given the excessive level of residents’ involvement, the distress and inconvenience caused, and the time, trouble and efforts by residents, the compensation amount offered by the landlord was insufficient. An order has been made below to put this right for the resident and for the landlord to learn from the outcome.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

As mentioned above, the landlord failed to redress all aspects of the complaint. it did not address the issue of operatives’ conduct.
The residents escalated their complaints to stage 2 on 1 December 2021. The landlord responded 132 days later against a target of 20 working days. This was not appropriate.
In its stage 2 response, which was over 7 months after its first response, the landlord did not revise its learning from the complaint nor provide any updates on its learning or the actions it had implemented since its stage 1 response. As a result, the landlord made the same mistakes again.
The landlord acknowledged that there had been complaint handling failures, which had caused the resident time, trouble, and delays. It made a compensatory payment of £150. It did not, however, demonstrate that it had taken any learning with regard to its complaint handling.
An order has been made below for the landlord to learn from the outcomes. A further order has been made below, which better reflects the landlord’s failures and the amount of time, trouble and inconvenience the residents have experienced in getting the landlord to learn from the outcome.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of a leak in the communal hallway.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord’s head of repairs must conduct a review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices and response to urgent repairs such as this. The outcome of the above review must be shared with this service within 6 weeks from the date of this report. The review must include the following:
1. Review its repair process when different tradesmen are required to attend a site simultaneously, as well as the mechanism it has in place to ensure the landlord oversees and coordinates these repairs to completion.
2. Review the conduct of its operatives and identify what it would do to address the conduct of its operatives in practice, and how it would monitor this going forward.
3. Review its internal complaint process and its application in practice. It must identify the conditions that led to the landlord misidentifying the relevant learning in this case.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to all residents and apologise for the failures identified in this case. It must also summarise the findings of its case review. A copy of this letter must be sent to this service.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay directly to the residents an additional £285 per each tenancy agreement, broken down as follows:
1. £135 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leak in the communal hallway.
2. £150 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint.