Peabody Trust (202303736)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303736

Peabody Trust

12 November 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of repair issues with the balcony doors and windows.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 3-bed flat owned by the landlord. She resides with her 2 children, both of whom have disabilities including neurodivergence.
  2. The resident raised issues with her balcony doors to the landlord in January 2022, leading to repairs. She then reported on 25 August 2022 that water was coming into the property through the bottom of the balcony doors and that there was a crack in a bedroom window. It raised works on this date and then raised further works on 28 September 2022 to rectify all metal window frames in the property, noting that a vulnerable child resides there.
  3. On 12 October 2022, the resident complained to the landlord it had not completed the works. The balcony doors were not closing properly and the balcony door in her bedroom kept flooding, causing staining to the carpet. She made a further complaint on 16 December 2022.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 3 January 2023. It advised that it had asked its contractor to book the works in with her directly and that it would continue to act as a central point of contact for her going forward. It said that once it had completed works, it would be able to review the complaint and repair, and consider any applicable compensation offers.
  5. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 17 January 2023 as she had received no further contact from the landlord’s complaint handler. She stated that its contractor had attended and recommended full replacement of the balcony doors and windows and she felt fed up with having to chase the landlord for repairs as the front room was the main sensory area for her children.
  6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 30 March 2023. In this response it stated that it agreed to replace the balcony doors and that this was major work. Therefore, it felt that the time between her initial report in August 2022 and these major works in October 2022 was reasonable. It agreed that a first contractor (Contractor A) had completed these works to a poor quality in December 2022, and it agreed to replace the balcony doors again via a new contractor (Contractor B). It apologised for not providing a more in-depth stage 1 response and offered compensation of £276.
  7. The resident did not wish to accept the offer made by the landlord at stage 2 and it agreed to review its response further once it had completed works. It sent a revised stage 2 response on 9 May 2023 following the completion of works. It offered compensation of £576.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint the resident has reported the effect that the issues have had on her the health of her children. The Ombudsman is not able to make a determination about any links between the issues and her health concerns. Under paragraph 42.f the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where this Service considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. However, the Ombudsman will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to their health is more appropriate for the courts and she may wish to seek appropriate advice if she wishes to consider that option.

Balcony repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its response timescales for different categories of repair. It specifies that programmed repairs are works that require additional time due to manufacture, complexity, or specialist trade, which include window replacements. It will complete these repairs within 60 calendar days. Recalled repairs are those that have failed to pass a quality inspection or where a resident has confirmed that it has not completed works. In these cases, the contractor must return to correct the defect within 5 calendar days.
  2. The evidence provided does not show a clear date on which the landlord attended following the resident’s report of water ingress from the balcony door on 25 August 2022. However, in its complaint case notes it stated that parts were on order on 12 October 2023 and that they could take weeks to arrive. The resident confirmed in her complaint of the same day that operatives had attended to measure the windows and door frame but that they had not completed repairs. At this time, it had attended within its repairs policy timescale for programmed repairs and this Service acknowledges that waiting for parts can, at times, cause unavoidable delays.
  3. The landlord has not provided the date on which Contractor A replaced the balcony doors, but the resident reported on 6 December 2022 that Contractor A had not sealed them properly and as such, the doors were allowing a draught into the property. It recalled works to Contractor A on 12 December 2022 and booked the soonest appointment for 20 December 2022. It took 6 calendar days to raise works following her report, then booked recall works for a further 8 calendar days later, exceeding its policy timescale of 5 calendar days.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 16 December 2022 as nobody had returned to seal her balcony doors or provide keys for them. She explained that the issue was causing her heating to have little effect and preventing her family from using the living room due to the cold temperatures. It provided a stage 1 complaint response on 3 January 2023 in which it explained that it had instructed Contractor A to book in the required works. Once completed, it would then review the repair and complaint journey and consider any applicable compensation. Its response was poor and offered little useful information to the resident.
  5. On 4 January 2023, Contractor A advised the landlord that they would book works in with the resident for the following week. She requested escalation of her complaint on 17 January 2023 as she had received no further contact from it since Contractor A’s visit. It instructed Contractor B to inspect the issue, and this took place on 27 January 2023. Contractor B found that Contractor A had fitted the balcony door combination poorly, leaving gaps around the doors, thus they were not watertight. Contractor B offered to quote for and complete the works on the balcony doors and windows in the flat which the landlord accepted on 7 February 2023, 63 calendar days after the resident’s report of the same issue. At this stage, it had already exceeded its policy timescales, and she was no closer to having properly functioning doors in the winter period.
  6. The resident again requested escalation of her complaint on 16 February 2023 as the landlord had not completed repairs. It approved a quote from Contractor B on 21 February 2023, however there was due to be a 3 to 4 week wait for materials to complete works. On 17 March 2023, it gave her an estimated date of the week commencing 3 April 2023 for completion of works. The further delays were understandable due to the wait for parts. However, it had already exceeded all policy timescales for works.
  7. In its stage 2 complaint response of 30 March 2023, the landlord explained that it had replaced the balcony doors in October 2022 following the resident’s initial report in August 2022, which it felt was a reasonable period of time. Although the exact dates are unclear, this is likely to have fallen within its policy timescale of 60 calendar days. It acknowledged that it should have inspected these works after completion to quality check the results as if it had, she would not have needed to raise a complaint, and it would have arranged the replacement sooner. It offered compensation of £276, broken down as follows:
    1. £151 for a loss of heating in the lounge at £1 a day for 1 room, between the beginning of November 2022 to the end of March 2023.
    2. £100 for time and trouble.
    3. £25 for its lack of stage 1 investigation.
  8. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will make payments between £1 and £200 for a resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience when there is a minor disruption. It will pay £3 a day between 1 October and 30 April for no heating (total loss) to help towards the cost of temporary heating. Its offer of compensation towards heating was generous and appropriate, however, when considering that the matter had been ongoing for 6 months at the time of its complaint response, it was not reasonable for it to consider the disruption to the resident as minor and as such, its offer of £100 was not appropriate.
  9. As the landlord was unable to provide a firm date for repairs, the resident declined its offer at stage 2. She explained that the ongoing issues had caused distress to her children due to the loss of the living room as their main sensory space. It acknowledged this and confirmed it would review its offer upon completion of works but explained that it had to provide a response to remain in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its offer to review its response and offers of redress demonstrated good practice as it was not obliged to do so.
  10. Following further delays in sourcing materials, Contractor B completed works on 3 May 2023. The landlord contacted the resident to confirm this on 4 May 2023 and provided a revised stage 2 offer on 9 May 2023. It acknowledged the impact the matter had on her children and in doing so, it increased its compensation offer to £576, broken down as follows:
    1. £276 as offered in its original stage 2 response.
    2. £150 (£25 a month from November to April) for lack of enjoyment of the home.
    3. £150 additional payment for time and trouble.
  11. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (compensation and learning from the failure) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, which are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  12. In this case, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the repair which it acknowledged in its responses to the complaint. The compensation offered in its revised complaint response was fair and in line with its compensation policy. It demonstrated leaning from the outcomes by acknowledging its failure to inspect works after completion. As such, a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. This Service notes however, that the landlord did not apologise for the issues at any stage. While its actions to resolve the issues is considered as adequate in the circumstances, this Service suggest that it should strongly consider offering the resident an apology for its failings.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It logs new complaints within 5 working days and provides a stage 1 response within 10 working days unless an extension is required. If this is the case, it will notify and agree this with the complainant.
  2. If a resident escalates their complaint to stage 2 of its complaints policy process, the landlord will respond within 20 working days of receiving the request. It will only extend this time limit if it needs more time to fully complete the review and it will communicate this to, and agree it with, the complainant.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for payments up to £250 for poor complaint handling, depending on the level of severity and impact on a complainant.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 12 October 2022. It has provided evidence showing that it logged the complaint but no evidence that it responded as per its policy.
  5. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), current at the time of this complaint, states that landlords must send a complaint response to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when outstanding issues are completed. As it had information that it was waiting for parts ahead of completing works, this would have been sufficient information to include as part of a stage 1 response and would have allowed the resident to escalate her complaint to stage 2 when works failed, instead of having to raise a new stage 1 complaint in December 2022.
  6. The resident raised a further stage 1 complaint on 16 December 2022. The landlord formally acknowledged this on 20 December 2022 and provided a response on 3 January 2023. This response was within its policy response timescale, but as accepted by the landlord in its later stage 2 response, it did not contain enough information and was not an appropriate response.
  7. On 17 January 2023, the resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2. While the landlord’s complaint handler did communicate with her after this, there is no evidence that it appropriately logged her escalation request, and it did not provide a response. She requested escalation for a second time on 16 February 2023. This was not reasonable of the landlord, and it did not adhere to the conditions set in its own policy by failing to acknowledge the escalation request.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 1 March 2023 and responded on 30 March 2023. It apologised for the slight delay in providing its response but did not acknowledge its failure to escalate her complaint in January 2023 following her first request. It offered £25 compensation for its lack of stage 1 investigation only. It did not increase this offer as part of its revised stage 2 response on 9 May 2023.
  9. The landlord’s overall response to its complaint handling was poor. It did not acknowledge its failure to appropriately respond to the resident’s complaint in October 2022, nor did it acknowledge that it had failed to escalate her complaint in line with its policy following her request on 17 January 2023. As such, a finding of service failure is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues with the balcony doors and windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £100 for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
    2. Apologise to the resident for its complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord organises a telephone conversation with the resident to discuss the impact this matter had on her children and their specific needs, along with ensuring it holds up-to-date records on the vulnerabilities within the household in case of any future repair needs.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord strongly considers providing the resident with an apology for the failures in its handling of repairs to the balcony doors and windows.