Peabody Trust (202300367)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202300367
Peabody Trust
29 October 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 response to the resident’s reports of:
- Damp and mould.
- A boiler fault.
- This report has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background and summary of events
- The resident lives in a 3 bedroom flat, which she has occupied since August 2014. She is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in the property with her children.
- It is not clear on which day but, in January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report a boiler fault. According to the records, the resident had reported that the boiler was producing only lukewarm rather than hot water. On 12 March 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She stated that:
- As her boiler was not working properly, her children were unable to wash in the morning before going to school.
- Since she had reported this, at least 3 electricians had visited her home. They all said that a boiler engineer was required and they would report the matter an emergency. Despite this, nothing further had been done.
- There had been many occasions where the landlord had arranged appointments but nobody had attended or made contact.
- There was “serious mould” in the house, particularly the bedrooms and bathrooms. There also appeared to be a leak in one of the bedrooms.
- The mould was a particular issue for her daughter who had a medical condition.
- On 28 February 2023, someone visited the property to look at the mould and the leak. However, they told her it was not a job for them but that they would raise an “urgent report”. She had not heard from anyone since then.
- The property had previously been treated for mould but it had come back and was getting worse.
- The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 May 2023 to tell her that it had logged her stage 1 complaint. On 27 June 2023, it called the resident to discuss her concerns. The resident told it that the main bathroom was the one most affected and she had to leave the hot water on all day so her children could shower. The resident explained that an operative had last attended in March 2023 but she had not been contacted since.
- The landlord sent its stage 1 response on the same day. It stated that:
- It understood that her home had 2 bathrooms and, although she was able to use the larger one, the hot water supply in both was “tepid at best”.
- It would “review its next actions with its heating contractor in relation to the hot water supply”.
- Its responsive repairs contractor had an appointment scheduled for 6 July 2023 to “assess and remedy the damp and mould problems”.
- It would continue to monitor the progress of the repairs and, if appropriate, calculate any compensation once they were complete.
- If she remained unhappy with its response, she would be able to escalate her complaint to stage 2 once the repairs were completed.
- The resident wrote to this Service on 3 July 2023. She said that, since she raised her complaint in March 2023, she had “made several telephone calls to the landlord to chase it up without success”. She confirmed that it had started addressing the damp in her bathroom but had still not dealt with her boiler problem. She explained that, she had to leave her boiler on overnight so she had some hot water in the morning. This resulted in “very high” electricity bills. We forwarded the resident’s concerns to the landlord on the same day and asked it to respond to her within 5 working days. The records show that, on 7 July 2023, the landlord completed the damp and mould works in the property.
- The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 July 2023 and told her that the Ombudsman had forwarded it her letter. It asked her if she was happy to allow it 20 working days to respond to her stage 2 complaint. The resident responded on 16 July 2023 and stated that:
- She had first raised her complaint on 12 March 2023 and not 22 May 2023 as it had stated in its stage 1 response.
- She had received an “automatic acknowledgement” on the same day and a written one on 15 March 2023.
- Its stage 1 response had not indicated whether or not the landlord had upheld her complaint and did not address her concerns. It only informed her when contractors would attend her property to complete the work.
- There had been “countless” times when operatives had visited her home but had always said they were “the wrong people for the job”.
- She found its response and its complaints process confusing.
- She wanted to “formally inform” it that it had still not completed the repairs she had reported and was therefore escalating her complaint.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 18 July 2023 and advised the resident it would respond by no later than 8 August 2023. On 8 August 2023 it called the resident to discuss her concerns. She confirmed that the damp and mould had been resolved but that she was worried it would return in the winter. The landlord advised her to contact it if this happened, and it would arrange a survey. She told it her water was still lukewarm. It assured her it had arranged for a “specialist contractor” to attend. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on the same day. It stated that:
- It acknowledged the delays in registering her stage 1 complaint and not addressing all the aspects of her complaint.
- It had not explained where it had “fallen short in respect to service delivery” and failed to apologise or offer any redress.
- It acknowledged that it had not sought an extension and accepted it had not managed her complaint effectively.
- It apologised for the confusion caused by its response and clarified that residents did not have to wait until works were completed to escalate their complaints.
- There had been delay in completing the damp and mould works and it would raise the matter with its contractor.
- It should have referred the repair to its surveying team following her complaint in March 2023. This would have resulted in a “clear action plan”, which could have been closely monitored. It offered its “sincere apologies” for the inconvenience caused.
- If she experienced any further problems with damp and mould, it would arrange for its surveyor to visit and conduct a “thorough inspection”.
- There had been a “major misunderstanding” regarding her reports of a boiler fault. When it spoke to its specialist contractor on 27 June 2023 it was confirmed there was no record of the repair. It had therefore referred the matter back to the contractor that completed the damp and mould repairs and it referred it to its specialist contractor.
- It was clear there had been confusion around whether the issue required a plumber or boiler engineer. It acknowledged the “extensive delays” in resolving the matter. It had arranged for a boiler engineer to attend her property and would track the repair until completion.
- It wanted to offer £650 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
- £200 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
- £450 in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by delays in resolving the damp and mould issues.
- It would issue a further response once the boiler repair was completed with a revised offer of compensation.
- The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 March 2024 to confirm that its contractor had completed all remaining repairs. It wrote to her again on 12 July 2024 and stated that:
- It was upholding her complaint as it was unable to see evidence her repair was properly managed.
- It apologised that her experience had been poor and had fed this back to the relevant staff.
- It acknowledged it had not followed its complaint procedure and, since issuing its stage 2 response, it took it another 8 months to complete the boiler repair.
- It had made changes to the way it managed its complaints process that meant complaints would not be closed until works were completed.
- It had provided feedback to complaint handling staff to improve the quality of “stage 1 management, investigation and responses”.
- It had looked at team structures to ensure it had the sufficient resources to meet demand and “met with residents to help shape and design the contact centre and complaints service”.
- It wanted to revise its offer of compensation to £850, which it broke down as follows:
- £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays and poor communication.
- £250 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
Assessment and findings
The landlord’s policies
- The landlord’s repairs policy outlines various responsive repair categories It attends to emergency repairs within 4 hours, and completes the work to “make safe” within 24 hours. It refers to its non-urgent repairs category as “next available”. These works are scheduled “to the next available resource” and are to be completed within 28 calendar days. Programmed repairs are those that require additional time due to manufacture, complexity or specialist trade, and include repairs like kitchen and bathroom replacements. These are completed within 60 calendar days.
- The damp, mould and condensation policy states that, where the damp and mould are not because of repair issues, the landlord will work with residents to help them manage condensation in their homes.
- The landlord’s complaints policy set out its 2 stage formal complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days and responds to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It has a 20 working day timescale for issuing stage 2 responses. If it needs more time to respond, it will provide an explanation to the resident, containing a clear revised timeframe for when it will respond. If an extension beyond 20 working days is required, this should be agreed by both parties. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
- Its compensation policy awards up to £650 in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience caused to a resident due to failures in service provision. The amount it calculates depends on the severity of failure and level of impact on the resident. It also awards between £25 and £300 in recognition of poor complaint handling, depending on the extent of its failings.
Scope of complaint
- The resident has stated that the damp and mould in her property has negatively impacted the health of her household. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding the health of those who live in the property. However, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one), as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
- It is noted that the landlord provided the resident in its stage 2 response with details on how she could make a claim to its insurer.
Damp and mould
- The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge the time and trouble the resident has spent reporting damp and mould in her property. However, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on the extensiveness or seriousness of the damp and mould itself. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
- The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is “fit for human habitation” in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the same act, ventilation
- The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. They should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner.
- The evidence shows that the resident first reported damp and mould in her property when she raised her stage 1 complaint on 12 March 2023. Despite having acknowledged her complaint on 15 March 2023, there is nothing to show that the landlord had referred the issue to the appropriate team. While it is recognised that the matter was reported to the complaints team, it could reasonably have forwarded the resident’s concerns to the repairs department accordingly. As such action was not taken, the resident’s concerns were not appropriately recorded or actioned.
- It is not disputed by the landlord that it should have arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property at this point. This would have identified the extent of required works at an early stage. Furthermore, a schedule of works could then have been shared with the resident and monitored to ensure all repairs were completed in a timely manner. The landlord’s failure to do this meant it had no proper oversight of the repair or the way its contractor was managing it. This would have contributed significantly to the delay in arranging for the work to be completed.
- There is no evidence that the landlord took any further action until it responded to the resident’s complaint, 1 month later on 27 June 2023. Given it was further reminded there was an outstanding report of damp and mould, this should have prompted it to act accordingly. That it took the landlord a further month to give the resident an appointment after it had initially failed to acknowledge her report was a failing. This demonstrates a lack of urgency in dealing with the damp and mould, and would have left the resident feeling it was not taking the matter seriously.
- It is noted that the landlord took less than 2 weeks to undertake the mould wash after it had issued its stage 1 response. This was appropriate. However, once the resident had put it on notice that she had damp and mould issues, the landlord should have acted promptly. Instead, it failed to take any action for around 4 months. This was far in excess of its timescale of completing repairs within 28 calendar days, and a departure from its repairs policy. This meant the resident and her family had to live with the impacts of damp and mould for longer than was necessary.
- Our spotlight report recommends that landlords should implement a risk-based approach with respect to damp and mould. It states that this will reduce over reliance on residents to report issues, help landlords identify hidden issues before a complaint or disrepair claim is made.
- The landlord has not provided any records to show it had carried out a survey or assessed the severity of the damp and mould at any point. The resident had told the landlord that one of her children had health conditions leaving her at particular risk from damp and mould. With this knowledge, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed any possible risks shortly after receiving the resident’s report. It was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident in its stage 2 response to contact it if she experienced further damp and mould problems, and assured her it would send a surveyor.
- Despite reporting recurring damp and mould, there is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with any advice or written information on managing mould and condensation, or ensuring adequate ventilation. The importance of this is highlighted in the spotlight report. The lack of guidance provided to the resident was a shortcoming in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure that it has measures in place to provide residents with information about dealing with damp, mould and condensation when such reports are received.
- Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord had considered carrying out a ventilation survey. This would have helped establish whether there was adequate ventilation in the bathrooms and bedroom, and would have been appropriate in the circumstances. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation for the landlord to consider undertaking an inspection to assess the ventilation within the property.
- In its stage 2 complaint, the landlord acknowledged the delays in completing the required repairs and told the resident it would raise the issue with its contractor. It apologised for the inconvenience it had caused, and gave details on how it had learnt from the failings it had identified. It also explained how it would embed the learning to improve its service going forward, which was appropriate.
- Furthermore, it offered the resident £650 in its stage 2 response, £450 of which was in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its delay in treating the damp and mould. The offer it made was in line with its compensation policy, and with what the Ombudsman would have ordered for similar failings. Based on the evidence that is available, we are satisfied that this was a proportionate offer in the circumstances. For the reasons stated above, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
Boiler fault
- The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately. Furthermore, under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair and working order any installations provided for water heating, including central heating installations.
- According to the evidence, it took the landlord over 12 months to repair the resident’s boiler after she had reported a fault. The records show that she did have some access to hot water during this time. However, she reported that this was minimal and that, due to the fault, her electricity bills were higher. This was because she had to leave her boiler on during the night in order to have access to hot water in the morning. The significant delay in resolving the matter would therefore have caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience, along with the associated additional costs.
- The records show that the resident first reported a boiler fault in January 2023. Although she stated that operatives had attended the property to inspect the boiler, the landlord has not provided any records of those visits. We do not doubt that the operatives had told her they would book emergency repairs with boiler engineers. However, as there are no records to show those discussions took place, the commitments the operatives gave the resident during their visits are unclear. Nevertheless, there is no indication the landlord took any further action, either prior to, or after the resident had raised her stage 1 complaint.
- The evidence shows that it was not until after the resident escalated her complaint on 16 July 2023 that the landlord had made arrangements for a boiler engineer to attend the property. That it took it over 6 months to raise a repair in response to the resident’s report demonstrates a significant failure in its repair management and tracking system. This would have caused her further inconvenience in having to repeatedly prompt the landlord to meet its repair obligations.
- The landlord had been put on notice of the outstanding repair and it was unreasonable that it failed to send an appropriate specialist at the outset, and start the process of completing the repair. Despite giving assurances in its stage 1 response that it would follow the matter up with its heating contractor, the landlord only took action after being prompted by the resident escalating her complaint. It should not have taken the resident complaining to compel it to progress the repair. This was a failing.
- The records show that, following its stage 2 response, it took the landlord a further 8 months to complete the boiler repair. It is unclear why this work could not have been done sooner. The landlord has stated that there had been initial confusion about whether the repair required a plumber or hearing engineer. However, this does not explain the further delay between August 2023 and March 2024.
- The Ombudsman appreciates that resolving some repairs, such as a boiler fault, is not always straightforward and can involve specialist technical expertise. It could be a case of ruling out causes until the source of the problem is identified. Where a process of elimination is required, the Ombudsman would expect to see an action plan developed by the landlord, or its contractor. This should be overseen and closely monitored to ensure the source is identified at the earliest opportunity, and a prompt remedy is then implemented. The landlord was unable to demonstrate that it had taken appropriate and timely action to find the cause of the boiler fault and to then complete a repair. This was a failure.
- The records indicate that the resident had to repeatedly contact the landlord between August 2023 and March 2024 because the contractor had failed to update her. Furthermore, the records indicate there were missed appointments, where the contractor had failed to attend. The landlord has provided no evidence to show it had contacted the resident during this time to provide updates, without the resident first prompting it for a response. Additionally, there are no records to indicate it had been liaising adequately with its contractor and monitoring it to ensure it completed the repair within a reasonable amount of time.
- It is evident the resident had to make significant efforts to try and progress the outstanding repair, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations. The landlord’s lack of communication would have caused understandable frustration. It would also have negatively impacted the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s handling of the repair.
- The Service recognises the landlord may have had some challenges with its contractors. It told the resident on 20 November 2023 that it had replaced the contractor who had been managing the boiler repair. It is acknowledged that this could have contributed to the delay. However, although this is noted, the landlord should always take all reasonable steps to ensure contractual issues do not impact on the services provided to residents. It has not demonstrated it took adequate steps to minimise any disruption. Its lack of any effective repair management and failure to put any contingency planning in place meant it did not take reasonable steps to keep delays to a minimum. Its apparent inability to properly monitor its contractor to ensure it completed the repair in line with its repairs policy was a failing.
- In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged its failings, the delay in addressing the boiler fault, and its poor communication with its contractors. Additionally, it sought to explain the reasons for the delay, which was appropriate. The landlord advised the resident that it would review its offer of compensation once the boiler repair was completed, which was reasonable. It then wrote to her on 12 July 2024 with an increased figure of £850, which included £600 for distress and inconvenience. The landlord did not provide a breakdown of this figure. Therefore, taking account of its earlier offer of £450 for its response to the damp and mould, it would have left £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the boiler repair. This included the 8 further months it took to resolve the matter following its stage 2 response.
- It is noted that the repair was completed on 5 March 2024. This meant that the landlord took around 4 months to send the resident its increased compensation offer. It is unclear why it could not have done this sooner. However, given the significant delays the resident had experienced already, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have prioritised sending its follow up response. This demonstrates a lack of customer focus.
- Although the landlord appropriately increased its offer,it appears that the amount awarded in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues with the boiler was £150. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide a clear breakdown setting out what had been awarded in respect of each element of the complaint – and how the figure had been reached.
- Although the attempts by the landlord are noted, based on the evidence that is available, £150 does not go far enough to recognise the impact of the significant delay and failings in addressing the resident’s boiler repair. The resident and her family were without an adequate supply of hot water for approximately 15 months. The household was therefore put through ongoing inconvenience and increased electricity bills as a result. Furthermore, under the landlord’s repairs policy, it should have fixed the boiler within 28 calendar days. It’s repair handling was therefore excessively protracted. Given the abovementioned failings, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration and will order further redress. It will also order the landlord to make a contribution toward any increased energy bills subject to the resident providing the required evidence.
Complaint
- The resident has confirmed that the landlord acknowledged her stage 1 complaint 3 days after she raised it on 12 March 2023. However, following this, it is evident it had failed to progress it further. The reason for this is unclear. However, this demonstrates a failure in the landlord’s system for tracking complaints. It was only until 22 May 2023, nearly 3 months later, that it finally allocated the complaint and sent the resident a further acknowledgement. The further acknowledgement failed to recognise or provide an apology for its delay in progressing the complaint. This was inappropriate and failed to recognise the frustration this would have caused to the resident, who was expecting a response within 10 working days.
- The failure to progress the stage 1 complaint was a significant contributing factor in the landlord’s delay in responding to the damp and mould, and boiler fault. It would therefore have been reasonable in the circumstances for it to have responded as quickly as possible once it had been made aware of its administrative error. That it took the landlord a further 26 working days to issue a response was a failing.
- Furthermore, between 22 May and 27 June 2023, there is no evidence it provided an explanation for why it could not respond within its timescale of 10 working days. The landlord cannot demonstrate that it sought to agree a new response timeframe with the resident. This was a departure both from its policy and the Code.
- The Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. It is not disputed by the landlord that it did not fully address the resident’s complaint or that it failed to offer an apology or redress for its failings. Additionally, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint that its initial response was misleading. It apologised for incorrectly leading the resident to believe she had to wait until all repairs were completed before escalating her complaint. It also clarified the escalation process, which was appropriate.
- It is noted that the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint in a timely manner. In its response, it acknowledged and apologised for its poor handling of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. Furthermore, it provided detailed information on how it had learnt from the failings, along with the changes it had made to its complaint service as a result. It offered the resident £200 for its poor complaint handling, which it later increased to £250 on 12 July 2024, after the conclusion of the complaints process.
- While it was appropriate for it to reconsider its position, the Ombudsman cannot regard the increased offer of £250 as reasonable redress. This is because it was made after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and approached the Ombudsman. Unlike the compensation awarded once the repairs were completed, the failings with the complaint handling could and should reasonably have been identified before the stage 2 response was issued. Furthermore, the landlord took around 4 months after the repairs were completed to send its final offer. Considering the significant complaint handling failures at stage 1, we have made a finding of maladministration. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the offer of £250 is a reasonable and proportionate amount of redress for the identified failings. We will therefore not be making a further order of compensation.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a boiler fault.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
- Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on making apologies.
- Pay the resident £700 compensation, calculated as follows:
- £450 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing her boiler. This replaces the additional amount of £150 that it had made after the conclusion of the complaints process, after completion of the repair.
- £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
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.
- The landlord to reimburse the resident for any additional energy costs she 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. The landlord to confirm to the Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report that it has taken reasonable steps to comply with this order.
Recommendations
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident the £450 it offered in its stage 2 response for its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
- The landlord to consider offering the resident a survey to assess the adequacy of ventilation in her property, and to provide appropriate advice on how to manage and minimise damp, mould and condensation.