Peabody Trust (202300779)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300779

Peabody Trust

30 May 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives with their two children. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association.
On 19 November 2021 the resident reported several repairs to the landlord. These included:
1. The living room ceiling bowing due to a previous leak.
2. Bird nests in the loft.
3. Pests related to the bird nests.
4. Mice in the kitchen due to ill-fitted units.
5. Structural cracks and damage to windows.
The landlord raised works orders the same day and arranged for a property survey to take place. The landlord attended the property on 8 December 2021. It noted:
1. the property was heavily overcrowded with belongings.
2. the living room ceiling needed to be repaired and there were cracks in the living room and bedroom. Asbestos testing would need to take place before it could replace the ceiling and replaster the walls.
3. the kitchen was in very poor condition with a free-standing cooker burning the end of the worktops. It stated the kitchen was unsafe and in need of renewal.
4. it should move the resident to a more suitable location at the earliest opportunity to allow it to refurbish the property when empty.
The landlord re-attended on 10 December 2021 to do the asbestos testing and renew the kitchen. It was unable to complete the works as the resident was concerned about dust in the living room (which they were using as a bedroom) and did not want items removed in the kitchen due to a vermin problem.
The landlord moved the resident into temporary accommodation on 5 March 2022. On or around the same day the landlord placed some of the resident’s belongings into storage. This was to allow an assessment of the required works to take place.
On 10 June 2022 the landlord asked the storage company to contact the resident and arrange to remove their remaining belongings from the property. The storage company confirmed they had spoken to the resident on 13 June 2022, but that the resident had been unsure what needed to go.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 20 June 2022 that the storage company would assist with packing items. On 25 July 2022 it provided the resident with the proposed scope of works and confirmed they would need to remove all their belongings from the property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 February 2023. It stated it was still waiting for the resident to clear the property and that the works were on hold until this had been done. It asked the resident to confirm, by 1 March 2023, that they would allow it to move their items into storage. It advised that if the resident did not respond it would pass the matter to its legal team.
The property was cleared on 23 March 2023 and the landlord began repair works on 29 March 2023.
The landlord attended on 2 April 2023 but was unable to access the property. It wrote to the resident on 5 April 2023 to advise that if they did not allow access by 11 April 2023 it would seek an injunction to gain access.
The resident returned the keys to the landlord and the landlord completed the works on or around 20 April 2023.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 24 April 2023. They stated that, while they had not yet been able to view the work that the landlord had done, they:
1. Did not believe, given the extent of disrepair, that the landlord could have completed repairs to legally acceptable levels in the time it had taken.
2. Believed “corners had been cut and real issues, such as damp, mould, and the bowed ceiling, had been hidden behind a new paint job”.
On 9 May 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to discuss their complaint. The resident explained they were unhappy that:
1. Some windows in the property did not open.
2. No works had been carried out on the living room ceiling.
3. The carpet on the stairs and the floors in the kitchen and bathroom had been damaged during the repair works.
4. There was still damp in the property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 May 2023. It said it had raised the resident’s concerns with its surveyor who confirmed:
1. They were satisfied with the quality of the completed work and the property was safe for the resident to return.
2. That the landlord could complete any outstanding works while the resident was in the property.
3. That all the windows in the property could be opened and closed, and there was no damage to carpets or flooring.
4. That the landlord had addressed the damp and mould issues.

It offered £25 in compensation as it had missed the deadline for issuing its stage 1 complaint response by 3 working days.

On or around 30 May 2023 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord acknowledged the escalation to the resident and stated they would be reviewing the following areas:
1. The resident’s dissatisfaction with works that they said had only been partly completed after a 15 month decant.
2. Health and safety concerns regarding the property.
3. Issues regarding the resident’s personal belongings.
4. Handling of the repairs and the complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 June 2023. It said:
1. It had advised the resident that its insurance team would deal with any claims for personal injury or damage to personal belongings. It confirmed it had provided the relevant contact details to the resident on 20 June 2023.
2. A post-works inspection had taken place on 20 April 2023 which confirmed the property was ready for the resident to move back in.
3. It had received an inspection report produced by a surveyor who had been instructed by the resident.
4. It had attended the property on 21 June 2023 to assess the property against the findings of that inspection report, but the resident had not been home. It asked the resident to confirm their availability so it could arrange an appointment.
5. Once it had completed the assessment it would be able to confirm what further works, if any, were required and the arrangements for completing those.
6. It would issue a further complaint response after the assessment. It advised the further response would consider any appropriate compensation for the handling of the repairs.
7. The primary reason for the length of the resident’s decant was issues with access to the property and the resident’s non-engagement.
It offered the resident £70 compensation. This comprised:
1. £25 for the delay in issuing its stage 1 complaint response.
2. £25 for not addressing the resident’s concerns about damage to personal belongings and personal injury at stage 1.
3. £20 for the delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response.

Events after the end of the complaints procedure

The landlord and resident have both advised this service that the resident would need to move out of the property again and place all their belongings into storage. This is to allow an assessment of the previously completed works and to determine what further works are required.
The resident has confirmed they have now moved into temporary accommodation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has significantly impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a significant failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

The landlord’s initial handling of the repairs was appropriate. It raised work orders based on the reports made by the resident promptly. It also contacted the resident to ask for further information about the size and location of cracks in the property.
It was reasonable for the landlord to attend the property to assess the scope of required works. The landlord’s initial attendance took place 19 calendar days after the resident’s report. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy which states it aims to complete non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days.
It is unclear why there was a delay from 8 December 2021 to 5 March 2022 before the landlord moved the resident to temporary accommodation. The landlord has provided an email it sent to the resident’s MP on 15 December 2021. This said its neighbourhood teams would be contacting the resident to try and arrange for areas of the property to be cleared to allow repairs to take place. However, the landlord has not provided this service with records of any contact that may have occurred. As a result, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the delay was reasonable or appropriate.
The emails provided by the landlord indicate a lack of effective information sharing. These show that prior to the resident moving out of the property, the neighbourhood teams believed the repair works had been scoped and could begin as soon as the resident had moved. It was only when confirming the date the resident would move out that the repair teams advised:
1. Asbestos testing still needed to be done.
2. The scope of the works needed to be assessed.
3. If the assessment showed major works were required, it may need to be referred through specialist works.
The lack of effective information sharing meant that there were additional delays caused by the landlord. The evidence shows it was not until 10 March 2022 that the landlord notified the appropriate teams to arrange appointments for asbestos testing and a full survey. The asbestos testing took place on 17 or 18 March 2022. This was 2 weeks after the resident had moved out.
The landlord has not provided this service with any inspection report produced following the survey or any records confirming the date it completed the survey. This was a failure and evidence of poor record keeping. However, the landlord provided emails demonstrating it had scheduled the survey for 21 April 2022. This was approximately 7 weeks after the resident had moved out.
The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have arranged for both the asbestos testing and property survey to have taken place before or shortly after the date the resident moved out. The landlord has not provided any explanation for why it had not done this. The Ombudsman therefore considers there was a failure by the landlord as there is no evidence the delays in completing these actions were reasonable or unavoidable.
The landlord has not provided any records which document why it decided the resident would need to remove all the items from the property before repairs could begin. However, it has provided photographs showing there were a significant number of belongings in the property. The resident has also confirmed this was the case. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s decision was reasonable because emptying the property would allow full access to all areas requiring repair and prevent any accidental damage to the resident’s belongings.
There is no evidence about why there was a delay of 7 weeks between 21 April 2022 and 10 June 2022 before the landlord took any steps to let the resident know they would need to remove everything from the property. On this basis, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the delay was outside the landlord’s control.
The available evidence indicates the resident was aware from 13 June 2022 that they needed to empty the property. The landlord’s records show that it made several requests, between June 2022 and March 2023, to the resident to try to store their belongings.
The resident was responsible for sorting their belongings, identifying which items the landlord should place in storage for them, and which items, if any, the landlord could dispose of. The evidence shows the resident did not complete this until around 20 March 2023. The Ombudsman therefore considers it would not be reasonable to hold the landlord responsible for the delay between 13 June 2022 and 23 March 2023 (9 months).
Once the property was cleared the landlord completed the repair works within 4 weeks. The Ombudsman considers this was a reasonable time and in line with its policy for non-urgent repairs which was to complete them within 28 days.
The landlord has provided an undated schedule of works for the property. The surveyor named in the schedule is the same individual allocated to the April 2022 property survey. The proposed works are the same as the scope of works given to the resident on 25 July 2022. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the landlord decided the schedule sometime between 21 April 2022 and 25 July 2022.
The schedule of works does not include any works related to the living room ceiling, windows, or bird nests and pests in the loft. The resident had previously raised these as areas of the property that needed work. The landlord had confirmed the living room ceiling required replacement during its initial attendance on 8 December 2021. However, as it has not provided an inspection report from its April 2022 survey, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to understand how the landlord decided on the required works or whether those works were reasonable or appropriate. This is evidence of poor record keeping and a failure by the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 August 2022 to advise that the following repairs were missing from the scope of works they had been given:
1. The bowed living room ceiling.
2. Window replacements in every room due to rotting frames, cracks, and snapped sash cords.
3. Bird nests and pests in the loft.
4. Large cracks in the living room wall, bedroom ceiling, and bedroom wall.
5. A boiler replacement.
6. Blown plaster on the staircase.
7. Damp in living room and hallway under windowsill.
The landlord did not respond to the resident to either advise it had amended the scope of works or to explain that it disagreed that the repairs were required. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have considered the resident’s notice and responded to explain the actions, if any, it intended to take.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will:
1. Treat any reports of damp and mould as an urgent repair.
2. Visit neighbours to satisfy itself the damp and mould is contained, or to determine the full extent.
3. Proactively seek out building defects that may contribute to damp and mould.
There is no evidence the landlord undertook any of these actions following the resident’s report of damp in their property. This was not appropriate because the landlord did not act in accordance with its damp and mould policy.
It is not in dispute that the landlord did carry out some works in the property. However, due to the inadequacy of the landlord’s repair records, it has not been possible for the Ombudsman to determine:
1. The specific issue each repair was intended to resolve.
2. The full scope of the intended work.
3. What the landlord did when it attended to do the work.
In addition, the landlord has not provided this service with a post-works inspection report. While it has provided photographs it had taken after it had completed the works, these are insufficient to allow the Ombudsman to adequately determine:
1. What the inspection on 20 April 2023 had assessed, and its findings.
2. Whether the landlord had completed all the work it had proposed to undertake.
3. Whether it had checked the repairs had been effective.
At both the stage 1 and 2 of the complaint process the landlord relied on an email from its surveyor stating that they were satisfied the repairs had been completed. At stage 2 the complaint handler requested a copy of the inspection report but there is no evidence this was provided. This was inappropriate because the resident’s concerns should have triggered a more robust approach to confirming the landlord had fulfilled its repair obligations. It would have been reasonable, given the disparity between the resident and the landlord, to have re-inspected the property to specifically address the resident’s concerns. Where there is such a dispute, landlords should ensure post work inspections or surveys are completed and photographic evidence is obtained.
The survey report produced by the resident’s surveyor is detailed and clearly sets out what they inspected and their findings. The survey was carried out on 27 April 2023. The findings directly contradict the landlord’s surveyor with respect to whether all the windows could be opened and the presence of damp in the property.

Summary and conclusions

It is the Ombudsman’s opinion, having considered all the circumstances, that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to its handling of repairs at the property. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine:
1. What the landlord considered when inspecting the property, and whether this was reasonable.
2. Whether the landlord identified the full extent of the required repairs.
3. Whether the landlord identified the cause of any present damp and mould.
4. What repairs were carried out by the landlord, and whether these were completed to a reasonable standard.
5. If and when the landlord made any reasonable efforts to assess whether the repairs were effective.
6. Whether the delays caused by the landlord in carrying out the repairs were reasonable or appropriate.
The landlord’s failure to handle the repairs in a reasonable or appropriate manner has resulted in the resident needing to move back into temporary accommodation. This is a significant disruption to the resident.
The landlord has provided evidence that it has made disturbance payments to the resident while they were in temporary accommodation. This was a reasonable action and in line with its policy. However, the landlord has not offered any compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is inappropriate because the landlord has failed to acknowledge the impact of its failings on the resident.
Following the Ombudsman’s determination of 202122259, the landlord has conducted an independent review following an order in accordance with 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman had made an order for the landlord to undertake a senior management review in this case and it should consider the findings of the independent review alongside this report.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged in both its complaint responses that it had not provided a response within its stated timescales. This was appropriate.
It was also appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that it had failed to respond to all the resident’s complaint points at stage 1 of the complaint process.
The Complaint Handling Code requires that there are only two stages of a complaint procedure. This would require a stage 1 and stage 2 response. This allows finality so that residents can refer their complaints to the Ombudsman where they remain dissatisfied. In this case, the landlord not providing a full stage 2 response and stating they would provide a further response at a later date did not meet the principles of the Code.
The Code allows for a landlord to provide details of actions it will take as the outcome to a complaint. These should have specific time frames and the landlord should track each action to completion. It should also provideregular updates to the resident.
In this case the landlord should have reached a decision on the complaint based on the evidence (or lack of evidence) it had at the time of its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. It could have then outlined remedial actions it would take, such as re-attending the resident’s property to assess the adequacy of the repairs and whether any further works were required.
There is no indication that the landlord identified the lack of post-works inspection report or the contradictory findings in the resident’s surveyor’s report as an indication that it may have an issue with its processes or record keeping. This was not in line with the Complaints Handling Code (the Code) which states landlords should look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether anything needs to be ‘put right’ in terms of process or systems to the benefit of all residents.
The landlord offered £70 compensation to the resident for poor complaint handling. However, this did not take into account the failure to provide a full and final response at stage 2 of the complaint process or the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint. The Ombudsman therefore does not consider the offer to be appropriate.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. We have therefore referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report. This written apology must be from the landlord’s Chief Executive.
2. If it has not already done so, undertake a full inspection of the property and produce a report.
  1. The report must address the areas of disrepair raised in the resident’s surveyor’s report.
  2. The report must set out what further works/repairs are necessary to provide a lasting repair.
  3. It must include date-stamped photographs.
  4. A timescale for those works to be completed.
  5. Within 5 days of the survey the landlord must provide a copy of this survey and a schedule of works to the resident and this service.
  6. The landlord must then use its best endeavours to ensure that all identified works are carried out within 56 days of the date of the survey. The landlord must create and maintain records to demonstrate to the Ombudsman what endeavours it has taken to have the works completed.
  7. If the landlord is unable to complete the works within 56 days of the date of the survey it must agree on a time-specific action plan with the resident for any outstanding works.
3. Pay the resident compensation of £1,700 which is comprised of:
  1. £1,500 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
  2. £200 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint together with the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.

In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must, within 84 days of the date of this determination, undertake a senior management review of this case. The review should be presented to its senior leadership team and shared with the Ombudsman. This review must include:
1. Why there was a lack of records in this case.
2. Whether its record-keeping systems and processes are adequate and meet the demand for the service.
3. What it could do to encourage positive behaviours and better record keeping with staff and prevent the same failures from occurring in future
4. Decide whether it needs to introduce written guidance for staff on the principles and importance of good record keeping.
5. Consider if more training is required for front-end staff in respect good record keeping.
6. Evidence to show it has considered the findings of the independent review ordered in 202122259 alongside the findings of this report.
7. The landlord must produce a report for the Ombudsman confirming the outcome of its review.
8. The landlord must show it has shared its report and findings together with any recommendations with its senior leadership team, as well as any affected head of services and/or executive director.