Peabody Trust (202303458)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303458

Peabody Trust

17 January 2025

 

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 the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and lives in a flat in a block. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for her.
  2. The resident reported concerns about damp and mould in her property in January 2023. The landlord inspected and arranged a “mould wash” for 6 March 2023. The evidence indicates the resident did not want to mould wash to go ahead.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint about its handling of her reports of damp and mould on 15 March 2023. She said it had recently attended to complete a mould wash but she had refused because she had been told the windows needed replacing, and the wall should be “hacked back” to treat the damp.
  4. On 22 and 24 May 2023 the resident reported a leak from the toilet, and that the tiles had fallen off the wall around the toilet. The landlord replaced the toilet at the same visit. The landlord completed a mould wash in 3 rooms at the resident’s property on 1 June 2023.
  5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 9 June 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delay in completing repairs. It said it understood that “all repairs” were now complete. It offered £350 in compensation for its handling of the repairs, and £50 for the delays in its complaint handling.
  6. The landlord repaired the tiling around the toilet on 28 June 2023. The resident contacted the landlord around 13 July 2023 (the exact date is unclear), and asked her complaint to go to stage 2 of its complaint procedure.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 25 August 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for its handling of the repairs and complaint handling delays. It said that its contractor would contact her to book the installation of the new windows once they were ready. It said this would take a minimum of 5 to 7 weeks. It would inspect the windows to see if an interim repair was needed before they were replaced.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response set out that it understood the resident was unhappy with the length of time the scaffolding was in place at her property. It explained that it planned to keep the scaffolding in place until it had completed the repairs. It understood the resident was of the view the damp, mould, and repairs to the toilet were outstanding. It said it would arrange for a further inspection to identify any ongoing issues. It offered the resident £1,059.05 for its handling of the repairs (including a 25% “rent rebate” for damp and mould), and £100 for complaint handling delays.

Events after the complaints process

  1. The landlord sought to complete an inspection in September 2023, and the evidence shows it was unable to complete the inspection.
  2. The resident contacted this Service on 30 November 2023, and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the damp, mould, and repairs. And its offer of compensation.
  3. The evidence shows an inspection went ahead on 7 February 2024. The landlord reported the windows were “not the only issue”, and the damp was “in the walls of the bedrooms which is not just condensation”. The operative recommended replacing the windows, and a full inspection of the roof, and brickwork to identify what was causing the damp. It is unclear what follow up was done at this time.
  4. The landlord sought to arrange a further inspection of the resident’s property, with a specialist surveyor, in April 2024. It is unclear if the inspection went ahead at that time. The evidence shows the landlord plans to replace the windows by April 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1. Throughout her complaint, and when she brought her complaint to this Service, the resident raised a concern that the condition of the property had affected her, and her family members’ health. The serious nature of this is acknowledged, and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  2. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance (if it has it), or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her, or her family’s, health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. The Ombudsman consider any general distress and/or inconvenience caused by errors by a landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her family’s health.
  3. The resident also raised a concern that the damp and mould in her property caused damage to her personal possessions. While the serious nature of this claim is noted, it is not the role of this Ombudsman to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. This Service has instead considered the landlord’s response to this concern, and whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
  4. The landlord accepted its handling of the various repairs at the resident’s property was poor, and offered compensation. It is not possible to determine how the compensation offered was calculated against individual repair issues. As such, this investigation has considered the overall offer of compensation and whether it fully put things right for the resident, as a whole. However, to promote learning for the landlord, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the individual repairs issues below, and identified areas of particular concern, and points of learning.
  5. The landlord issued its final complaint response in August 2023. At the time of its stage 2 response the substantive issues in the case were outstanding. For fairness, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This is to fully consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues raised in the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of damp, mould, and the associated repairs

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
  2. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to complete non urgent repairs within 28 calendar days with an “average target” of 10 days. The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy states that it will “investigate all” reports of damp and mould.
  4. The landlord sought to complete a mould wash in March 2023, after inspecting the resident’s property. We have not been provided with notes from the inspection at that time. It is therefore not possible to determine if its inspection was appropriately thorough. Considering the only work it raised was to complete a mould wash, it is reasonable to conclude that it did not complete a thorough inspection of the property.
  5. The resident was evidently concerned about the presence of mould in her property, and expressed dissatisfaction, in March 2023, at the landlord’s approach of completing repeat mould washes. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord responded to this concern at the time, or sought to complete a more thorough inspection of the resident’s property. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions she described. That the landlord did not respond to this specific concern may have increased the distress she experienced.
  6. The information provided shows that the landlord did not adopt the recommended approach to damp and mould, as set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, which is available on our website. The report said that landlord’s “technical staff and repairs managers willing and able to properly inspect and remedy issues was crucial to being able to identify root causes”. It is apparent that the landlord did not conduct an appropriately thorough assessment of the property at this time, to identify possible “root causes” of the damp and mould. The lack of a proactive approach to identify the causes of damp and mould increased the detriment the resident experienced.
  7. The landlord fixed the leak from the toilet around end of May 2023 (the exact date is unclear). The repair was completed within the timeframes set out in its repairs policy, and was reasonable in the circumstances. The evidence shows it completed the tiling repair around the toilet on 28 June 2023, which was also within the timeframes set out in its repairs policy, and reasonable in the circumstances.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of June 2023, appeared dismissive of the resident’s concerns about its handling of the damp and mould issue. It offered little assessment of its handling of the repairs, and was silent on the resident’s concern about the effectiveness of the mould washes. This was unreasonable. It is also noted that its response was inaccurate, as not all repairs raised were completed at that point, as it had not completed the tiling around the toilet. The lack of thoroughness in its stage 1 complaint investigation can reasonably be concluded to have impacted on its overall response. The resident was inconvenienced by the landlord not appropriately addressing the concerns she raised as part of her complaint.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of August 2023, went some way to putting right the above failings. It offered a more detailed assessment of its handling of the repairs, and appropriately identified that it needed to conduct a further inspection in relation to the damp and mould. We welcome the fact that the landlord revisited its offer of compensation at stage 2 of its internal process. However, given that the substantive issues of the complaint remained outstanding at the time, the offer of compensation made did not fully put things right for the resident.
  10. The resident raised concerns throughout her complaint that the landlord’s handling of the repairs had caused damage to her personal possessions. That the landlord’s complaint responses were silent on this concern was inappropriate, and a further failing in its handling of the matter. The landlord should pass on its liability insurer’s details to the resident now, if it has a liability insurer, so she can raise a claim if she wants to. Matters of insurance fall outside the complaints process and the insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot comment on the insurer’s actions if a claim is made to it or the likely outcome of such a claim.
  11. If the landlord does not have liability insurance which covers claims like this it should explain this to the resident. As above, the resident may wish to consider getting independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue a legal liability claim against the landlord as an alternative to an insurance claim.
  12. The landlord sought to complete a further inspection of the resident’s property in September 2023. The evidence shows it was unable to gain access to the resident’s property. Its attempted inspection was within its repairs policy timeframe which was appropriate in the circumstances. That it was unable to gain access impacted on its ability to respond to the issue. This impacts on the degree to which the landlord is responsible for the further delays, around that time, in addressing the damp and mould issues within the property.
  13. The evidence shows that the landlord took down the scaffolding in January 2024. It is noted that the resident was unhappy with the length of time it was in place. The landlord used it stage 2 complaint response to explain it was of the view it was reasonable for it to remain in place until it had completed the repairs. While the length of time the scaffolding was in place was evidently frustrating for the resident, the landlord outlined its position with clarity, and the presence of scaffolding did not significantly impact on the resident’s ability to occupy her property.
  14. The resident’s concerns about the safety, and lack of regular safety checks, of the scaffolding are noted. While we do not seek to dispute her concerns, the evidence indicates these concerns were first raised in December 2023, after the landlord issued its final complaint response. As the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to that specific concern as part of a complaint, its handling of the issue is not within the remit of this investigation.
  15. The landlord’s inspection of the property in February 2024, found that further investigations were needed due to it finding that damp was “in the walls of the bedrooms which is not just condensation”. On the evidence provided for this investigation, this is the first instance of the landlord seeking to get to the “root cause” of the damp issues within the property. This is concerning considering it had been on notice for over a year about the issue.
  16. The inspection recommended investigating the “gable end” as a possible cause of the issues. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord followed up on this within a reasonable timeframe, as it did not seek to arrange a further inspection until April 2024, 2 months later. The further delay may have increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
  17. Internal emails from April 2024, seen as part of this investigation, further support the conclusion the landlord did not adopt an appropriate approach to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The email states the damp and mould was a “recurring issue after several mould washes”. It is concerning that the landlord repeatedly attended to wash the mould away, without attempting to identify the root cause of the issue. We welcome the fact that by April 2024 the landlord was seeking to complete a more thorough investigation into the issue. However, it is concerning this only occurred over a year after it was on notice and after “several” unsuccessful mould washes.
  18. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the damp and mould inspection took place in April 2024. This was a further delay that inconvenienced the resident. The landlord told this Service, in May 2024, that the damp and mould issue was “still under investigation”. It is noted that some of the delay was outside of the landlord’s control. However, that the issue was ongoing for over a year was unreasonable. We have seen no evidence that an appropriately thorough damp and mould inspection has been completed at the property.
  19. This Service has seen internal landlord emails, from September 2024, that indicate the landlord was not progressing with other works at the property as it was of the view the “main issue” was the windows. It is unclear why the landlord’s position changed, or how it came to such a conclusion without an appropriately thorough inspection. Its inspection of February 2024 cited other possible causes of damp and mould. The evidence also shows in July 2024 (discussed in emails in September 2024) its contractor proposed a list of works including renewing fans, redecorating, and treating mould. Even if the windows was the main issue, the landlord should have still addressed other repair issues which were identified as contributing to the damp and mould to fully resolve it.
  20. The comments in this email are of concern. The landlord was aware that mould was a “repetitive occurrence” as its contractors were doing mould washes on “wet surfaces” in its properties, leading to mould growing back. The information provided indicates such an issue was happening in this case, and the landlord was not addressing other possible causes of the damp in the property. The landlord must urgently instruct an independent damp specialist surveyor to inspect the resident’s property.

Request to replace the windows

  1. The resident stated that the landlord said it was going to replace the windows in November 2020. While we do not seek to dispute this claim, matters dating back to 2020 are not within the remit of this investigation. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from January 2023 onwards. This was when the resident raised concerns about the issue again.
  2. The resident says she was told by the landlord the windows needed replacing and expressed her dissatisfaction in March 2023 with this not being done. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord responded to this concern at the time, which was unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by the landlord’s silence on the issue. We have not seen evidence of the inspections from early 2023, and are therefore unable to corroborate the resident’s claim. What is clear is that the landlord missed an opportunity to set out its position on the windows at the time, which inconvenienced the resident and may have led to her feeling that it was not listening to her concerns.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of June 2023, was silent on the resident’s concern about the windows. This was unreasonable and caused a further inconvenience. At this point, the resident had waited for 3 months for a response to her complaint, and did not have all of her concerns addressed.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of August 2023, went some way to putting right the above failing, and set out its position on the windows. This was appropriate in the circumstances. That it did not specifically apologise for the delay in setting out its position on the windows was inappropriate, and a shortcoming in its response.
  5. The evidence shows that shortly after issuing its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord’s position on the window replacement changed. It decided to add the windows to its planned programme for the 2024/25 financial year. It is noted it still planned to replace the windows, but not within the 5 to 7 week period it outlined it its stage 2 response.
  6. It is generally reasonable for landlords to schedule major works such as window replacements months or years in advance in order to manage their finite resources effectively and provide value for money. However, we have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord was proactive in explaining the change in its position to the resident, which was a further failing in its handling of the matter. This caused the resident a disappointment, and the lack of communication about the issue caused an inconvenience. The landlord plans to replace the windows by April 2025. We have seen no evidence to indicate it had communicated this position to the resident. It must do so.
  7. The landlord set out that it would complete interim repairs to the windows, while it was awaiting the full replacement. We have seen no evidence that such repairs went ahead. It is concerning that an internal email from September 2024, advised to “cancel any works related to the windows”. This was inappropriate considering at this point the window replacement could still take several months to go ahead. The landlord must reinspect the windows to identify any interim repairs needed, ahead of their replacement.

Redress for the landlord’s failings in its handling of the repairs

  1. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the role of this Service is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. While this Service welcomes the landlord’s decision to revisit its offers of compensation in order to try and put right its evident failings. It is concerning that after the resident exhausted its complaints procedure, it continued to make similar failings. At the end of the complaints procedure, the landlord offered a total of £1,059.04 in compensation for its handling of the repairs, including a “rent rebate” for the damp and mould. The matter was outstanding at the time, and the evidence shows the landlord had not yet completed an appropriate inspection of the damp and mould issue. We have therefore determined its offer of compensation did not put things right for the resident.
  3. The landlord offered the compensation based on rent for the period covering January 2023 to May 2023 when said it completed some works. This was to cover the “significant period [the resident] had to live with damp and mould”. The works the landlord completed in 2023 did not resolve the issue, and the mould returned. The landlord told this Service it was still investigating the damp and mould in May 2024, and we have seen no evidence it has completed an appropriately thorough investigation to identify the root causes of the issue. We have therefore determined it appropriate to make an order of compensation for loss of amenity up to the point we determined the complaint was “duly made” (within the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate) in May 2024.
  4. The Ombudsman considers it appropriate to order the landlord to provide financial redress which recognises the resident did not have full enjoyment of the property for a substantial period due to the various repairs. We consider it appropriate to mirror the landlord’s offer of compensation equal to 25% of the rent for a loss of amenity covering a further 12 months up to May 2024, totalling £1,677.12. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.
  5. Considering the failings identified above, it is evident the landlord’s errors caused distress and inconvenience that had a significant long term impact on the resident. We have therefore determined there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of severe maladministration an order of compensation for over £1,000 for distress and inconvenience may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. Considering the £500 already offered by the landlord for “time, trouble, and inconvenience”. We have determined a further £500 is appropriate to recognise the additional distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the issues after it issued its stage 2 complaint response.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint procedure. Its procedure states that it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and send a response within 10 working days. It states it will send stage 2 responses within 20 working days. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices.
  2. The landlord sent the stage 1 complaint response 3 months after the resident first raised her complaint. This was an unreasonable delay and well outside of the timeframes set out in its complaint policy, and the Code. This was a failing in its complaint handling that caused the resident inconvenience. That the landlord apologised and offered redress for the delay was appropriate. However, it offered very little in the way of learning about what caused the delay, and what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. The landlord missed an opportunity to show appropriate learning and build trust with the resident.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 32 working days after it was made. This was outside of the timeframes set in its policy and the Code. The landlord apologised and offered redress for the delay, which was appropriate. It is worth noting any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive. As at stage 1, the landlord offered little in the way of learning about the complaint handling delays, and what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. This was a further shortcoming in its complaint handling.
  4. Considering the failings identified above, we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, and its offer of £100 did not fully put things right for the resident. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of service failure an order of compensation up to £100 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. We have determined the landlord’s offer of compensation was appropriate to put things right for the resident in respect of the errors in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Instruct a senior member of staff at director level or above to apologise, in person or by telephone according to the resident’s preference, for the failings identified in this report. The landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £3,236.16 in compensation. The landlord’s offer of £1,059.04 should be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
      2. £2,236.16 in recognition of the loss of amenity caused by its handling of resident’s reports of leaks, damp, mould, and the associated repairs. (this figure includes the £559.04 it offered at stage 2 of its complaints process).
    3. Complete an inspection of the resident’s windows to identify any interim repairs. A scheme of planned works, including timescales must be provided to the resident and this Service, also within 4 weeks.
    4. Write to the resident outlining when it plans to replace the windows in her property.
    5. Write to the resident with the details of its liability insurer (if it has one), and how she can make a claim for damage to her possessions. If the landlord does not have liability insurance for this type of claim, it should explain this to the resident.
  2. Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to instruct a mutually agreed, damp specialist, surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The findings of the inspection must be shared with the resident and this Service, also within 8 weeks. The inspection should:
    1. Be a full inspection of the property to identify possible causes of damp and mould.
    2. Consider the resident’s concerns about ongoing repairs issues in the property.
  3. Within 12 weeks the landlord is ordered to conduct a review into its handling of the repairs. It must consider the failings identified in this report, and identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again. The landlord should share the findings of the review with the Ombudsman within 12 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord pay the resident the £100 in compensation it offered in recognition of its complaint handling failings, if it has not already done so.