Peabody Trust (202311590)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311590

Peabody Trust

17 April 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a boiler.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. The resident is a assured non–shorthold tenant who has lived in the property with her daughter since July 2011. The resident is a cancer survivor.
  2. On 23 December 2022 the resident reported her boiler had broken down and there was no heating or hot water. The resident and her daughter subsequently had to boil water up in saucepans in order to take a shower, which they both struggled with as both had back or joint issues.
  3. The resident has told this Service that in the two months afterwards the landlord’s contractors attended on two occasions but did not resolve the issue and that although it said it would arrange further repairs this did not happen. The landlord’s records do not show this, although it has not disputed this account.
  4. The resident complained on 1 March 2023. The landlord raised an emergency repair for 9 March 2023 but the contractor did not attend. The landlord then arranged another operative to attend on 16 March 2023. They found that the boiler was corroded at the bottom and recommended a replacement. No repairs were carried out.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 20 March 2023 to say it was waiting for an update from the contractor and would offer compensation once it completed repairs. No timescales for completing repairs were given.
  6. The resident reported the boiler was leaking steadily from the bottom on 6 April 2023 and then again several times in mid-April 2023. She expressed concerns about this being a fire hazard, an electrical hazard that might cause a short circuit and also damage to the building’s structure. She also said that she had no hot water supply.
  7. The landlord sought internal advice from its own operatives and contractors, with one recommending the help of a specialist heating engineer and another saying no specialist was needed unless the cylinder needed to be replaced.
  8. A contractor attended on 20 April 2023 and conducted some repairs.
  9. The landlord issued a second stage 1 response on 10 May 2023 summarised as follows:
    1. It accepted the resident had been without hot water for 114 days since December 2022.
    2. It offered £290 as compensation which included £236 for loss of hot water (calculated at £1 per day for two people) and £50 in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble.
    3. It had asked the contractor to return to fix the boiler.
  10. The resident informed the landlord on 10 May 2023 that the boiler started leaking again on the day after the repairs and it could only warm up enough for one person to use the hot water.
  11. The landlord’s heating contractors attended intermittently throughout June and July 2023 without the problem being resolved. According to the resident, they identified the boiler was damaged inside and needed replacing, but told her that was not within their services.
  12. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 20 July 2023. An advocacy service sent an email on her behalf on 10 August 2023 to support her complaint. The resident contacted this Service in August 2023 to say despite her requests for escalation, the landlord had not responded. We then contacted the landlord.
  13. The landlord carried out further works on 23 August 2023 to fit parts. It issued a third stage 1 complaint response on 30 August 2023 to apologise for the delays, stating that it needed time to repair the boiler due to sourcing parts and that the contractor had not been able to get in touch with the resident to book in appointments. It offered £350 in compensation for the resident’s time and trouble and said it would credit this to her rent account.
  14. Following intervention from this Service, the landlord ordered a replacement of the boiler cylinder on 27 September 2023.
  15. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 3 October 2023 to say:
    1. It acknowledged poor complaint handling and failure to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
    2. It said the hot water supply had been intermittent and there was a delay to approve the quote for a replacement of the boiler cylinder. It would arrange installation soon.
    3. It offered £1,620 in compensation for the resident’s time and trouble, broken down as: £400 for poor complaint handling, £100 for delay to escalation of complaint, £350 for time, trouble and inconvenience, £350 for health impact, and £420 for 4 months of no hot water.
  16. The contractor replaced the cylinder on 13 October 2023.
  17. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation offer which she considered did not reflect that they had no hot water from 23 December 2022 for about 293 days, or the financial and psychological strain this has caused them.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This investigation will consider events starting from 23 December 2022 up to 13 October 2023. This is from the day the resident reported the boiler issues up to the day the landlord replaced the cylinder.
  2. The Ombudsman has noted the resident saying the lack of a functional boiler has caused a physical health impact to her and her daughter as they could not have hot showers and had to strain their backs and joints to use hot water from a saucepan to clean themselves. While the Ombudsman acknowledges this must have been distressing and concerning for the resident, the Ombudsman is not able to determine the cause of their physical health symptoms or whether a landlord’s actions or failures to act have impacted on a person’s health and wellbeing. This type of personal injury claim is better suited to the courts, where the judge would benefit from an independent medical expert confirming the diagnosis, cause and prognosis of the injury or illness. It is usually only the courts that can say if legal liability arises. The Ombudsman can, however, consider if the resident was likely to have been caused distress and inconvenience by the landlord’s actions or omissions.

Relevant policies and guidance

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the property for space heating and heating water. The tenancy agreement confirms this.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it must complete emergency repairs within 4 hours of the resident reporting the issue. Emergency repairs are defined as repairs that need a rapid response to safeguard the wellbeing of residents, the structural stability and integrity of properties and/or the health and safety of people using the affected area.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, it should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and then respond to the complaint within 10 working days; at stage 2 (the final stage) it should respond within 20 working days. These timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which member landlords are expected to adhere to.
  4. The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy states that for a service failure causing extensive disruption with a high impact and high effort to resolve it would offer compensation in the range of £401 to £600. It also states for a severe failure in complaint handling, where it has failed to follow the complaints policy or procedure, or investigate a complaint correctly, causing a significant impact on the complainant, it would offer compensation in the range of £101 to £150.
  5. For total loss of hot water, after the first 24 hours of interrupted supply, it would offer £1 per day per person as compensation.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler.

  1. The Ombudsman considers that the loss of hot water supply during the winter months should have been prioritised as an emergency repair. Records do not support that the landlord treated the matter with the urgency it should have.
  2. Although contractors attended multiple times from 25 December 2022 onwards to September 2023, there appeared to be a complete breakdown of internal communication as to what further steps were needed to resolve the issues.
  3. As of March 2023, the contractors had identified the boiler was corroded at the bottom and required a complete replacement, however this was not passed to the appropriate specialist for further action. The contractors only informed the resident that the further necessary work was not within their service agreements with the landlord.
  4. Around April 2023, the landlord carried out an internal discussion about what further steps were needed. Records showed its staff disagreed internally about whether specialist involvement or replacement of the whole boiler was necessary, and ultimately this resulted in no further action.
  5. Despite the resident chasing multiple times, the landlord sent out heating contractors for more repairs which it should already have been aware would not effectively resolve the problem. It did not take on any feedback from its contractors nor investigated the matter thoroughly to take appropriate action.
  6. The boiler was also leaking since April 2023 which the resident and her daughter had to cope with by containing the leak themselves. As the resident pointed out, the leak could potentially be an electrical hazard. This should also have been registered as an emergency repair, however the landlord did not take action to investigate or resolve the leak.
  7. The landlord stated at stage 2 that it delayed in approving the quote for the boiler replacement. These extensive delays caused the resident and her daughter significant distress and inconvenience, while they had to heat up water on the stove to have hot water for hygiene during winter. The Ombudsman considers the resident and her daughter had to repeatedly transfer large volumes of hot water from the kitchen to the bathroom to wash themselves, in uncomfortable body positions, which caused significant day-to-day disruption, distress and inconvenience. This impact is particularly significant in view of the resident’s health condition as a cancer survivor. Further, the leak from the boiler remained a constant source of worry and fear for their own safety.
  8. The landlord has offered £700 to the resident in recognition of the time, trouble, inconvenience and health impact to her. It also offered £420 for ‘4 months of no hot water supply’.
  9. The boiler issues persisted from 23 December 2022 until 13 October 2023 when the cylinder was replaced. Discounting the initial 24 hours, this period was 293 days (equivalent to about 9 months and 21 days). The landlord has suggested in its complaint response that the resident experienced an intermittent supply but not total loss of hot water during this period.
  10. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s compensation offer for 4 months of loss of hot water goes some way towards remedying the impact to the resident, but does not go far enough to reflect the extent of the impact to the resident and her daughter. This is because the landlord has not adequately considered the significant distress and inconvenience from carrying hot water back and forth and the exposure to worry and distress for a prolonged period of time. Further, the landlord has not recognised the effect of the leak from the boiler on the resident as this caused near-constant worry and distress.
  11. Due to the above reasons, there is maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler.
  12. Taking all the circumstances into account, the Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in line with full loss of hot water during this period and also increase its compensation in recognition of the resident’s distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord made three stage 1 complaint responses on 20 March 2023, 10 May 2023, and 30 August 2023 respectively. Despite the resident requesting escalation multiple times, it did not provide the resident with a stage 2 complaint response until 3 October 2023 following intervention from this Service.
  2. The landlord’s use of language in its stage 1 response of 20 March 2023 was inappropriate. It said it was ‘waiting for the contractor to update’ instead of providing any concrete response or action plan. It acknowledged that the contractor had recommended a boiler replacement but did not state what it would do to progress this. It also told the resident that it would first complete repairs, and then it might offer compensation if it identified any failings.
  3. The landlord should have used the complaint procedure as a way to review its own actions, acknowledge any failings, and offer appropriate redress to mitigate the impact to the resident up to that point. This response of 20 March 2023 failed in every aspect and gave the impression that the landlord had not taken sufficient ownership of the situation or resolving it.
  4. Further, in this letter, the landlord stated to the resident should she remain dissatisfied after it had completed repairs, it would have a further discussion with her and should they be unable to ‘reach an agreement’ she would be ‘given the opportunity to escalate her complaint to the 2nd stage of the complaints process’.
  5. The Code clearly states that if the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response, the landlord must escalate the complaint to stage 2, where the stage 1 response would be reviewed independently by a different member of staff. It should not be necessary for the resident to provide any explanation to the complaint handler at stage 1 for her complaint to move forward.
  6. The landlord’s explanation to the resident of 20 March 2023 that they should ‘have a discussion’ before it would consider escalating her complaint further was a barrier to the complaints process. This was inappropriate and did not align with the Code, nor the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of transparency and fairness.
  7. The landlord’s third stage 1 response of 30 August 2023 also used inappropriate language. It stated that the reasons for the delay were that the contractor required time to order the parts, and that the contractor was unable to contact the resident to book in appointments. There is no record to support that the landlord had ordered the parts in good time, nor that the contractors had tried to fix appointments with the resident for the part replacement. On the contrary, all the records indicated that the resident had tried, multiple times, to contact the landlord for repairs to no avail. The language use created the impression that the landlord was attempting to shift some of the responsibility of the delay onto the resident, despite having no evidence this was the case.
  8. The landlord’s complaint handling on this matter has put the resident and her daughter in a position where they were subjected to significant distress and were not treated with the fairness or respect they deserved. This was the case despite the resident informing the landlord early on about the potential health impact the situation was causing her as a cancer survivor.
  9. Overall, these three stage 1 responses issued by the landlord from December 2022 to September 2023 repeatedly gave the impression that the landlord was dismissive, avoided taking ownership of the issues, and attempted to downplay the impact to the resident without taking her concerns seriously. The landlord missed multiple opportunities to put things right sooner for the resident. The cumulative impact of these stage 1 responses over a prolonged period of time would have caused the resident distress, disappointment, frustration and loss of trust in the landlord.
  10. At stage 2, the landlord has made a general acknowledgment that its complaint handling was poor and it failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 when it should have done so. It has offered £500 as compensation in recognition of these failings.
  11. Although this goes some way towards remedying the impact on the resident, there has been no recognition that its language use was inappropriate, nor that some of its previous explanations about the complaint procedure or the delays to the repairs were inaccurate or inappropriate.
  12. Due to the reasons set out above, there is service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  13. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord should make another apology to the resident to recognise specifically what went wrong in terms of complaint handling and also increase its compensation payment to adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
    1. A member of the landlord’s senior leadership team must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report and acknowledge the impact its handling of the boiler issues and its complaint handling has had on the resident and her family. The landlord must provide us with a copy of its letter.
    2. Pay the resident £370 in compensation (on top of the £1,620 which was previously offered and must also be paid to the resident if this has not been processed). The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears and is comprised of:
      1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the boiler.
      2. £170 for the loss of hot water from 23 December 2022 to 13 October 2023 (calculated at £1 per day for 293 days for 2 people and rounded up to the nearest £10, making the total amount of compensation for loss of hot water £590).
      3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review the lessons learnt from this case with its repairs and complaints teams. It should discuss what service improvements it needs to implement to prevent similar issues happening again and action these items afterwards. It should provide relevant staff members with training to ensure they can address the issues raised by a complainant in line with the Complaint Handling Code and the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.