Peabody Trust (202304896)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304896

Peabody Trust

31 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress from the roof and resulting damp in the property.
This investigation also considers the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the property, a 3-bed top floor flat, since 1999. The flat is within a converted street property.
The landlord has told this Service that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household. The resident has told this Service however that she has a chronic lung condition. The landlord’s records indicate that she made it aware that she had a health condition when reporting repairs.
The resident has said that she has been reporting issues with her roof for 4 years. The landlord’s records show she first reported issues with damp due to a leak from the roof in 2021.
In April 2023 the landlord advised the resident it had raise a “case” with its customer care team in relation to the roof.
Around the same time, the resident contacted us. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of a leak coming from her roof. She was also unhappy with the landlord’s communication in relation to her complaint. We contacted the landlord on 28 June 2023 and asked it to raise a complaint on the resident’s behalf.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 28 June 2023. On 12 July 2023 it told the resident it would need longer to provide its stage 1 complaint response. It said this was because it needed more information from its contractors.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 26 July 2023. It said:
1. It had applied its discretion to consider events which occurred more than 6 months ago.
2. It had raised “several” repairs since 2021 in relation to water entering the property due to issues with the roof.
3. It had carried out repairs to the gutter, roof, and brickwork.
4. The resident had reported in April 2023 that there were holes in the roof and that this was causing damp in her property.
5. Photos provided by the resident did not show “a great deal of damp”.
6. There had been delays in getting quotes from the contractor.
7. It recognised that the process had taken longer than “hoped” and that this had caused inconvenience to the family. It offered compensation of £600 in recognition of this.
8. If the resident remained unhappy, she could escalate the complaint to stage 2 within 10 working days.
9. Its offer of compensation remained valid for 3 months.
On 17 January 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process. She said the roof had not been repaired and the issue had been going on for 4 years.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint escalation on 4 March 2024. On 26 March 2024 it advised it would need longer to provide its response due to staff absence.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 25 April 2024. It said:
1. There was no evidence the resident had brought the issue to its attention until this Service contacted it.
2. It had raised several roof repairs “over the last 2 years”, and these had been completed. It had also completed repairs in March 2022, February 2023, and August 2023.
3. It upheld the complaint because:
  1. It had not followed up after its stage 1 complaint response despite the repair remaining outstanding.
  2. There was no evidence of a risk assessment after its surveyor’s inspection in January 2024.
  3. It had not adhered to its complaint procedure. Its stage 1 response, escalation acknowledgement, and stage 2 response were all delayed.
4. It increased its offer of compensation to £975 comprising:
  1. £275 for poor complaint handling.
  2. £700 for stress and inconvenience of the repair issues.
5. Its contractor had not yet completed the repair. It was considering changing to a different contractor. It would monitor progress and after the roof repair was complete it would assess the damp.
The resident has told this Service that the landlord has not yet completed the roof repairs and she continues to experience damp in her property as a result.
The complaint became one that this Service could consider in November 2024.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord has advised this Service that it has been unable to locate a copy of the tenancy agreement. We cannot therefore detail any specific clauses. The landlord however is obliged, in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to repair the structure and exterior of the building.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete non-urgent repairs within 28 days. It will complete programmed repairs which require a specialist trade (including roofing works with scaffolding) within 60 days.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it may decide not to consider issues which occurred “or were first found” more than 12 months earlier. It says it will apply discretion when deciding whether to consider such issues.
The complaints policy states the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The policy also says that all stage 2 escalation requests must be made within 10 working days of the stage 1 response.
The landlord has a compensation policy which provides guidance on the amount of compensation it will pay depending on the impact of a failing. The policy states it will usually offer compensation after it has completed any repairs. In some circumstances however it says it may calculate an award up to the date when it has committed to complete the repairs.
The policy says resident have up to 3 months to accept an offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service acknowledges that the resident has stated that she has been experiencing leaks from her roof for 4 years. We do not seek to dispute this. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. As issues get older, they can be harder to investigate. This is because it can be harder to locate and obtain relevant evidence and recollections of events may not be as reliable. However, as the landlord referred to events from 2021 in its complaint response, we have also considered this timeframe.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress from the roof and resulting damp in the property.

In November 2021 the resident reported that there was damp in her bedroom. The records show the resident chased the landlord 3 times during December 2021 and January 2022 asking when it would carry out repairs. The repair records state that the resident was unable to sleep in her bedroom, they also state that the resident was suffering from cancer.
The landlord has not provided evidence that it carried any work. Nor has it demonstrated that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities in order to determine whether she required support. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider prioritising the repair based on the resident having cancer. If it was unable to expedite the work it would have been reasonable for it to consider whether the resident needed to be decanted. That the landlord failed to consider these actions was inappropriate.
In May 2022 the resident asked the landlord when it would repair the roof. The records show the landlord contacted its contractor, who confirmed that the repairs were complete. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its contractor’s comments. However, the resident believed the repair to be outstanding. Given that the landlord remained overall responsible for the repair, it would have been reasonable for it to have visited the property to satisfy itself that the necessary work had been completed. That it did not was a missed opportunity. The landlord’s records relating to this period do not detail that any work was undertaken, as such it has not been possible for us to establish whether repairs had indeed been completed.
In response to communication from the resident, the landlord asked the contractor to attend again in July 2022. The contractor said that it was unable to access the back of the house due to an “extension” built by the ground floor tenant. It is unclear whether the landlord followed this up.
In July 2022 the landlord raised work to clear the gutters. The contractor completed this work in August 2022. This was a reasonable timeframe.
On 7 September 2022 the landlord raised a repair for a “leak coming from a crack in the [party] wall” following a report from the resident. It is not clear what happened after the repair was raised. The landlord should have ensured that any action taken in response to the report was adequately documented. The resident contacted the landlord in late September 2022 and January 2023 asking when it would carry out repairs. That the resident had to chase the landlord for updates and to affect a repair was unreasonable and caused her to invest unnecessary time and trouble.
The records indicate that the landlord completed works to the party wall in February 2023. The records do not however show what works it completed or on what date. We would reasonably expect the landlord’s records to contain enough information to satisfy itself, the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its repair obligations. It has not done so in this instance.
The resident reported on 10 March 2023 that damp patches had started reappearing after the works completed the month before. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded. This was unreasonable.
On 31 March 2023 the resident told the landlord there were “still holes in the roof”. She said that water was travelling between her walls and causing damp patches in the bedrooms. The repair log shows that the landlord raised a repair but that it cancelled this on 17 August 2023. It is not clear why the appointment could not go ahead. However, this should have been documented and the landlord should have arranged a further appointment as it was aware that the issue remained unresolved. That the landlord did not take such action was a failing.
Photographs seen by this Service show that in the resident’s bedroom there are several damp patches on the walls. Within its stage 1 complaint response the landlord stated that photographs provided by the resident did not show “a great deal of damp”. We would reasonably have expected the landlord to show greater empathy for the resident’s situation. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that there were signs of damp and to apologise for the impact this may have had on the resident especially given her underlying condition.
On 12 December 2023 the landlord offered to undertake mould treatment at the property. This was reasonable. However, the resident declined on the basis that the repair was outstanding.
On 25 April 2024 the resident asked the landlord when it would complete the repair. She said the contractors were having issues erecting the scaffolding due to a lean-to which the ground floor tenant had erected. She asked why the landlord had done nothing about this. The landlord replied but did not provide a timeframe for the completion of the repairs. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on repairs published in 2019 stated that landlords should agree actions and timescales for responding to repairs in line with its policies and obligations. It states the landlord should confirm the actions and timeframes in writing and inform the resident of any delays and explain why these are necessary. That the landlord did not do so in this was unreasonable.
The resident again asked the landlord on 9 May 2024 when it would carry out the repairs. The landlord said it had allocated the works to a different contractor who would arrange to inspect the issue and commence works as soon as possible. It again did not provide any timeframes. This was a failure to effectively manage the resident’s expectations. This Service considers that the landlord should reasonably have done more to oversee the works and ensure they were completed without further delay.
On 17 May 2024 the landlord advised it was waiting for a surveyor to be allocated to lead and advise the contractors and ensure they completed works accordingly. It referred the issue to its property services team on the same day. It is not clear why it took the landlord more than 3 weeks after its stage 2 complaint response to make the referral. That it did was an unreasonable delay.
The landlord raised a job for a surveyor inspection on 20 May 2024. The inspection was carried out the following day. The surveyor raised repairs to refix tiles on the roof which had slipped and to redecorate the resident’s bedroom. The inspection report noted that access was “very difficult” due to a structure which had been built by the ground floor tenant.
On 18 June 2024 the landlord updated the resident. It told her its surveyor had completed an inspection and had instructed a specialist roofing contractor. It also said the ground floor tenant was unwell and that this could cause delays in gaining access to erect the scaffolding. The landlord updated the resident again at the end of June 2024 and said it was still having difficulty erecting the scaffolding due to the ground floor tenant’s structure.
The evidence shows that the landlord asked the local housing management team 10 times between June and November 2024 to address the lean-to, which was unauthorised, with the ground floor tenant. We have not seen evidence that the local housing management team responded or that it took any action. This caused demonstrable and unreasonable delays in erecting the scaffolding required to repair the roof.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on 2 September 2024. She said she had received no updates since June 2024. The landlord did not respond so she telephoned a week later. While it took steps to update the resident in June 2024 the landlord failed to maintain its updates. That the landlord failed to regularly update the resident as it had agreed in its stage 2 complaint response was unreasonable. This led to the resident having to invest avoidable time and trouble
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 November 2024. The email indicated that a telephone call had taken place but the landlord has not provided evidence of this or what was discussed. This is a record keeping issue.
In November 2024 the local housing team advised that it would “begin a process” of informing the ground floor tenant to remove the unauthorised lean-to structure. It said the process could take up to 3 months before it could forcibly remove the structure.
The records show that the landlord was aware that the ground floor tenant’s unauthorised structure was preventing access for the scaffolding in April 2024. However, it first became aware of the structure and the issues that it posed in relation to scaffolding in July 2022. Had the repair been appropriately monitored at that time, steps could reasonably have been taken to ensure that the lean-to was removed sooner. We therefore consider that the landlord’s failure to take action in relation to the lean-to in 2022 created some avoidable delay.
The resident has advised this Service that at the time of writing this report the structure remains in place and that the landlord has completed no works to the roof. It has therefore been unable to carry out repairs to address the damp patches in the resident’s bedrooms. That the resident continues to experience damp in the property 22 months after reporting the issue is inappropriate.
The landlord offered the resident £700 compensation in relation to the stress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the roof repair and damp. We acknowledge that this is not an insignificant sum. However, as the issue remains unresolved, we do not consider that this figure provides sufficient redress for the detriment experienced by the resident.
In the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the 9 months following the final complaint response that the resident’s occupation of the bedroom has continued to be affected by damp. Considering the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £618 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 10% of the total rent during the period in question. We have ordered that the landlord pay the resident this amount. We have also recommended that it consider a further payment based on the same calculation when it resolves the repair.
Overall, the landlord:
1. Unreasonably delayed in resolving the roofing issues raised by the resident.
2. Failed to complete the repair within the timeframe outlined in its policy.
3. Failed to demonstrate that it took the required actions to facilitate access for the scaffolding for over 2 years.
4. Did not communicate effectively with the resident throughout the process to keep her updates and effectively manage her expectations.
As a result the resident has experienced damp in the property for an unreasonable period. We have therefore found severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to her reports of water ingress from the roof and resulting damp.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The resident first raised her complaint in April 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord emailed the resident and said it had raised a “case”. It is not clear that the case that it raised was a formal complaint. As the resident was expressing clear dissatisfaction with the service provided, it should reasonably have raised a formal complaint and acknowledged it as such. That it did not do so was unreasonable and a failure to adhere to the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident subsequently found it necessary to seek our assistance as the landlord failed to respond to her complaint. This was inappropriate. After the landlord logged the complaint, it failed to inform her that it required additional time to respond until the day the response was due. It should reasonably have requested an extension as soon as it became aware that it would be unable to meet the timeframe outlined in its policy and the Code.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response 20 days after acknowledging the complaint. As it had requested an extension, this was in line with the requirements of the Code and was reasonable. Within its stage 1 complaint response the landlord advised it had applied its discretion to consider events which occurred more than 6 months prior. This was in line with its own policy and was reasonable and proportionate.
The stage 1 complaint response acknowledged delays in progressing the roof repairs. The landlord explained that this was due to delays in its contractor providing a quote. It is correct that the landlord provided an explanation for the delay however it is the landlord’s responsibility to effectively manage its contractor’s performance. As such, it would have been reasonable and transparent for it to acknowledge any omission on its part to actively monitor the repair.
The landlord offered the resident £600 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delay to complete the repairs. It did not however offer any apology or compensation for the delays in its complaint handling. Nor did it outline what steps it would take to ensure it completed the repair promptly. This was unreasonable.
We note that the landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident had 10 working days in which to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The Code states that the landlord must escalate a complaint if it is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction, unless an exclusion ground applies. We accept that the landlord did not refuse to escalate the complaint in this case. However, we consider that theinclusionin its policy of a 10-working day timeframe in which to request an escalation is unnecessarily limiting.
The 10-working day timeframe is particularly unreasonable in this case. The landlord had committed in its stage 1 complaint response to carry out works. It did not expect to complete the works within the 10-working day timeframe. Therefore the resident would not know within the timeframe whether they were satisfied with the outcome as the landlord itself had not had an opportunity to fulfil the commitments it made. We have recommended that the landlord review this timeframe.
The landlord advised the resident that its offer of compensation was valid for 3 months. This is in line with its policy. While this time limit was not unreasonable per se, it could lead to residents feeling pressured to accept an offer of compensation. The landlord should reasonably have made it clear to the resident that accepting the compensation would not prevent her from escalating the complaint or referring it to this Service.
The resident escalated her complaint on 17 January 2024 as the roof had not been repaired. It took the landlord 33 working days to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint. That far exceeds the timeframe outlined in the Code and its own policy. There is nothing within the evidence which suggests that this delay was unavoidable.
The landlord then advised it needed longer to provide a response due to the complaint handler being off work. That the landlord contacted the resident to agree an extension was in line with the Code.
The stage 2 complaint response upheld the resident’s complaint and increased its offer of compensation to £975. The landlord also acknowledged and apologised for the complaint handling delays. This was appropriate.
The stage 2 response did contain some inaccuracies and shortcomings. The landlord said there was no evidence the resident had brought the issue to its attention until this Service contacted it. The evidence shows this is not the case. The resident attempted to raise her complaint 2 months before we contacted it, but the landlord did not respond. This should reasonably have been apparent to the landlord when it was investigating her complaint.
The response also provided some vague information regarding repairs that it had previously completed. It did not however state what these repairs were or why they did not resolve the issue of water ingress and damp. This was a failing.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the repair remained outstanding. It said it would monitor the repair and keep the resident updated. This was appropriate.
The primary purpose of a complaints process is, as outlined in the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, to “put things right”. Given the issues raised in the resident’s complaint remain unresolved this Service does not consider that the landlord’s complaint handling effectively fulfilled this purpose.
The landlord offered the resident £295 compensation for its failings in the handling of her complaint. This figure is in line with its compensation guidance and with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. However, in line with our outcomes guidance as the substantive issue of complaint remains unresolved, we do not consider the landlord to have provided reasonable redress.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. Acknowledge or log the resident’s attempt to raise a complaint in April 2023.
2. Apologise in its stage 1 complaint response for delays in its complaint handling.
3. Acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint within a reasonable timeframe as outlined in the Code and its own policy.
4. Ensure the information provided in its stage 2 complaint response was accurate and thorough.
5. Put right the substantive issue of complaint.
We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress from the roof and resulting damp in the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord must apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. The landlord must pay the resident £618 in relation to reduced enjoyment of the bedroom due to its response to the resident’s reports of water ingress from the roof and resulting damp in the property. This is in addition to the £975 offered in its stage 2 complaint response.
3. The landlord must provide an update to the resident and this Service regarding the roof repair. This should include an action plan to resolve the repair and associated damp and timeframes for the works.
4. The landlord must consider the possibility of decanting the resident if it appears that issues with removing the lean-to are going to take a long time to resolve.
5. The landlord must ensure its records are up to date in relation to the resident’s health condition and any other vulnerabilities.

Recommendation

The landlord should, on successful completion of the roof repair, consider a further compensation payment based on the same calculation applied by this Service. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s decision in relation to this recommendation, she is able to make a further complaint to the landlord.
The landlord should review the 10-working day escalation timeframe within its complaint policy.