Peabody Trust (202306657)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202306657
Peabody Trust
8 October 2024
Our approach
The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.
Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.
The complaint
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 2 bedroom flat in a block, and her tenancy started in July 2019. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
- The resident complained to the landlord on 23 June 2022 and said there had been a leak from the property above for “years”, and it had not resolved the issue until 2022. She said the issue had damaged her carpets and led to mould growth in her property.
- The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 6 July 2022. It said the leaks from the property above were now resolved, and apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve the issue, and its “poor communication”. It said it could not investigate concerns about “historic issues or service failures” dating back more than 6 months. It explained how the resident could make a claim on its insurance for damage to her personal property.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 6 July 2022 and asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2, but later asked it to close the complaint on 2 August 2022. The resident asked the stage 2 complaint to be reopened on 7 October 2022. The resident asked for “reassurance” the leak was resolved.
- The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 23 December 2022. It set out the history of the repairs to the leak from the property above and said there was a “live issue” affecting the roof of the property and there “may” be some “trickling down”. It said it was satisfied all leaks from the pipework in the property above were resolved. It asked the resident to update it on the “present situation” in her property, in relation to leaks and damp. It asked for photos to review so it could decide on next steps which might “include a surveyor inspection”. It apologised that an inspection of her property had not been offered sooner, and for the delays in its complaint handling. It offered £100 in compensation for its handling of the substantive issue, and £100 for its complaint handling.
- The resident contacted this Service on 23 June 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy that the landlord had not replaced the flooring in her kitchen and bathroom. She said she wanted the landlord to investigate why the damp and mould kept returning.
Assessment and findings
Reports of a leak
- 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.
- 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.
- The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to complete non urgent repairs within 28 calendars days with an “average target” of 10 days. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy which came into states that it will “investigate all” reports of damp and mould.
- As part of the resident’s complaint, she raised concerns about leaks from the property above dating back to 2014, and 2017. In line with its complaint policy the landlord set out that it could not look into historic issues, due to the passage of time. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the approach set out in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time. It is worth noting the Code, which came into force in April 2024, now stipulates landlord’s should widen this timeframe to 12 months.
- We are also unable to investigate matters dating back to 2014/2017, due to the passage of time. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from 2022 onwards when the resident raised concerns about the issue again.
- This Service has seen evidence that the landlord completed inspections, and repairs, in 2023, in relation to the resident’s concerns about leaks, damp, and mould. The landlord’s handling of matters after it issued its final complaint response, in December 2022, are not within the scope of this investigation. This is line with the approach set out in our Scheme which states that we are not able to investigate matters where the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to as a formal complaint. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of leaks, damp, and mould in 2023, she may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord.
- The resident put the landlord on notice about a concern about damp and mould, caused by the leak from the property above, in June 2022. This was done as part of her complaint. It is noted that the landlord was satisfied that it had resolved the leak from the property above. However, that it did not seek to inspect the resident’s property in relation to her concerns about damp and mould at that time, was unreasonable. This was a failure to adopt the approach recommended by our spotlight report on damp and mould that states landlord’s must be “willing and able to properly inspect and remedy issues […] to identify root causes”.
- The resident was inconvenienced by the fact the landlord was not proactive in inspecting her reports of the mould allegedly caused by the leak. This was unreasonable.
- The landlord’s stage 1 response, of July 2022, appropriately set out its position in relation to the leak from the property above. It reasonably set out that it was unable to investigate historic issues, but accepted a failing in its handling of the matter more recently. While appropriate to apologise for the time taken to resolve the issue, and its “poor communication”, that it offered no redress for its admitted failing was unreasonable.
- The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was silent on the resident’s concerns about mould. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The Code states that a landlord must respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint, that it did not address this specific concern caused the resident an inconvenience. She was evidently distressed at the conditions she described in her complaint. That the landlord did not set out its position on this concern, or what steps it was prepared to take, increased that distress and was a failing in its handling of the matter.
- That the landlord’s stage 1 response gave the resident advice on how she could make a claim on its insurance for the alleged damage to her carpets was reasonable in the circumstances. It is noted that the landlord later accepted responsibility for the issue and replaced the flooring in 2023. As outlined above its handling of matters in 2023 is not within the scope of this investigation, but is included here as useful context.
- The landlord also did not assess its handling of the leak from around the time of the complaint in any detail. This was a failing in its response that inconvenienced the resident. The evidence seen for this investigation indicates the landlord had limited information available to appropriately assess its handling of the leak at stage 1. This is evidenced by an internal email from July 2022 where it stated it was “unable to thoroughly investigate the repairs” as they were done by its “surveying” team. This is evidence the landlord’s information management around the repairs were poor, which impacted on its ability to provide an appropriate response.
- The evidence shows that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint investigation sought to put right the above failing by interviewing officers involved with the repairs to the property above, in December 2022. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it sought to learn from the outcomes of its stage 1 response, and provide a more appropriate level of detail to the resident it its stage 2 response. This was reasonable and went some way to putting right its earlier failing.
- The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of December 2022, gave a detailed breakdown of the repairs. It set out its latest position on the issues with the property above, while also managing the resident’s expectations about what information it could share due to GDPR. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and put right the lack of detail given in its stage 1 response.
- As with its stage 1 response, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was inappropriate in relation to the resident’s concerns about mould, she claimed, was caused by the leak. While it appropriately apologised that a surveyor inspection was not “offered sooner”, it appeared to put the onus on the resident to provide photos of the mould before it would raised a surveyor inspection. This was inappropriate, and not in line with the approach set out in its damp and mould policy, which is silent on the need for resident’s to provide photos. That the landlord did not raise a damp and mould inspection at the time was unreasonable and increased the detriment the resident experienced.
- It is noted that the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection at the resident’s property in June 2023, we have therefore not made an order for it to do so.
- The resident put the landlord on notice about damp and mould following the leak in June 2022, that it did not conduct an inspection at the time was unreasonable. The landlord appropriately satisfied itself the leak itself was resolved, and explained this to the resident. Its stage 1 response lacked detail and learning, a failing it stage 2 response put right. However, the stage 2 response was inappropriate in relation to the resident’s concerns about mould, and unreasonably put the onus on her to provide evidence, rather than raising an inspection. Considering this failing we have determined that its offer of £100 in compensation did not fully put things right. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the matter, and a series of orders are set out below.
Complaint handling
- 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 landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response within the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
- The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent 55 working days after the resident asked it to reopen the stage 2 complaint. This was an unreasonable delay that was well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. This caused the resident an inconvenience.
- The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately apologised and offered redress for the delay. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also showed learning about what it had done to improve its complaint handling which showed learning, and is evidence it sought to build trust with the resident. This was appropriate. Considering the learning shown, and the level of redress offered we have determined the landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling failings.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above.
- 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
- Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
- Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
- Pay the resident £150 in compensation in recognition of its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. It should deduct the £100 it offered at stage 2 if already paid.
Recommendation
- It is recommended the landlord pays the resident the £100 it offered for its complaint handling if it has not already done so.