Peabody Trust (202322145)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322145

Peabody Trust

10 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to a leaking roof.
    2. The formal complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a one-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has a medical condition which the landlord has recorded.
  2. The landlord has provided a copy of the tenancy agreement but has not provided the conditions. However, under section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 a clause is implied into every tenancy agreement that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property, which includes the roof.
  3. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it categorises repairs as either emergency (attend within 2 to 4 hours), non-urgent (repair within 28 working days), or programmed/specialist (repair within 60 working days). It states that it is responsible for the repair of communal areas.
  4. The landlord defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) under its complaints policy. It operates a 2-stage process. At stage 1 the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days or will agree an extension with the resident if it needs more time. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 3 working days and respond within 20 working days unless it needs to agree an extension with the resident if it needs more time.
  5. The Code in use at the time sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.9) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).
  6. Under the landlord’s compensation policy, it can offer compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience, or poor complaint handling, where there has been service failure. The policy contains suggested amount bandings based on the level of impact on the resident.
  7. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out 21 recommendations to help landlords improve their management of knowledge and information. These include developing an organisational key data recording standard to set out the minimum standard to which data must be entered in the landlord’s databases.

Summary of events

  1. On 9 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report that his roof was leaking into the property. The landlord has not provided evidence of this to this Service. It raised a repair the following day. It also raised a repair for a mould wash, which the resident asked to cancel on 23 January 2023 as he said it was the roof which needed to be repaired. However, it re-raised the repair the same day.
  2. The resident used the landlord’s online complaints form to make a stage 1 complaint on 26 January 2023, which was about:
    1. Having contacted the landlord several times since 9 January 2023 to report the leak but its contractor had not contacted him with an appointment.
    2. He had used its online reporting system, had called it and had contacted it through social media trying to chase the repair. The water damage was getting worse, and the landlord was not doing anything.
  3. On 30 January 2023 the landlord completed a mould wash and repaired the bathroom and kitchen ceilings. Its repair record noted that there was still a leak from the roof.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 February 2023 in which it:
    1. Defined the complaint and set out the timeline of events. It said it had discussed this with the resident when it called him on 14 February 2023. The landlord has not provided evidence of this call to this Service.
    2. Said it had already raised a repair and the appointment was for that day.
    3. Confirmed it would continue to monitor the situation.
    4. Explained how the resident could escalate the complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
  5. The same day the landlord’s specialist roofing contractor attended and carried out repairs. Its report of the works said it had repaired pointing and replaced mortar. It recommended further works around the chimney and said “the repairs should be considered as temporary”.
  6. On 5 April 2023 the resident reported that the roof was still leaking. (The landlord has not provided evidence of this report.) Its repairs records say it recalled the roofing repair on 18 April 2023 but there is no information on whether it booked an appointment or took any further action.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive on 3 May 2023 to ask for help. He said his roof had been leaking since January, it had cemented it and painted over mould, but he was being ignored when he asked for a surveyor to inspect. He included photographs which showed water-stained roof joists and water damaged loft insulation. The landlord replied and said he needed to allow it to complete works to the chimney. It also said he could ask to escalate his complaint to stage 2 if he wished to.
  8. On 19 June 2023 the resident exchanged messages with the landlord via social media messaging. He asked for an update on the repairs and said he wanted to escalate his complaint. He exchanged emails with it between 20 and 21 June 2023 and said the roof had still not been repaired and he was severely dissatisfied. He also asked why his complaint had not been escalated and said he had asked several times to do this. It acknowledged escalation by email on 29 June 2023. He replied and said he had asked to escalate on 9 April 2023.
  9. In internal emails between 4 and 11 July 2023 the landlord discussed arranging a surveyor to inspect the roof. It said it was requesting this “due to the sensitivity of this case and involvement of social media”. It asked whether there was scaffolding at the property and emailed the resident on 10 July 2023 to ask him. It booked a joint inspection with its surveyor and the contractor for 24 July 2023 and confirmed this with the resident. It noted the resident was concerned that scaffolding would not be put up in time.
  10. On 20 July 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it:
    1. Set out the timeline and admitted it did not understand why its contractors carried out the remedial works before the roof work was carried out.
    2. Said it could not find any evidence the resident had asked to escalate his complaint before 2 May 2023.
    3. Explained before it could send a surveyor it had to send a supervisor, who attended on 17 May 2023. No evidence of this has been provided to this Service.
    4. Accepted it should have investigated the roof repairs further after its contractor said its repairs were temporary. It also said its repairs lacked co-ordination as it had completed internal repairs before external ones.
    5. Offered £150 compensation for inconvenience, time and trouble, and £200 compensation for poor complaint handling, totalling £350.
    6. Said it had arranged a joint surveying inspection but had had to cancel it as scaffolding was not in place. It said it would contact him to rearrange.
    7. Explained how he could contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The landlord put up scaffolding and carried out the joint surveyor inspection on 15 August 2023. The landlord has not provided an inspection report, notes or any other evidence of the inspection to this Service.
  2. On 1 September 2023 the landlord emailed the contractor about the works, who replied they would scope the works on 11 September 2023. However, the same day the landlord wrote to the resident and said the property was to be included in a cyclical programme for external works, windows and roofing repairs. He emailed it to question why he had received the letter, and it said it should have checked first. It said it would not be doing the repairs as these would now be completed with the cyclical works. It took its scaffolding down on 5 September 2023.
  3. Between 18 September 2023 and 15 November 2023, the resident emailed the landlord multiple times asking for an update on the roof repairs. The landlord chased the contractor several times, and on 23 November 2023 it put up scaffolding. The resident continued to chase the repairs and on 27 November 2023 the landlord approved renewal of the roof. The resident continued to email the landlord, and it emailed its contractors for updates. The contractor told it they were going to start work on 8 December 2023.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 December 2023 with a video of the leak. It emailed its contractors who attended the same day to fix the leak. In an internal email the landlord said it had offered to ‘decant’, or temporarily move, the resident but he had turned this down, as he was concerned about his furniture. He emailed it again on 16 December 2023 and said work was underway, but it had been a week without a roof. He asked it to remove the wet insulation in the loft before replacing it and for a dehumidifier. He also asked when the works would be finished. The landlord did not reply to his requests.
  5. On 10 April 2024 the contractor emailed the landlord and said it had completed the works and inspected them on 5 April 2024 and had taken down the scaffolding. The resident told the landlord on 24 April 2024 that repairs still needed to be done for the guttering but that he would complete the internal redecoration himself. The contractor emailed the landlord on 15 July 2024 and said all repairs had been completed.
  6. The resident told the Ombudsman on 13 August 2024 that since the roof replacement a tile has broken off. He also said the landlord had laid new insulation on top of the old water damaged insulation in the loft and provided a photograph which showed this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a leaking roof

  1. When the resident reported that his roof was leaking the landlord accepted that it was responsible for repairing it. It raised a repair but did not provide an appointment date, which left the resident to chase it, which was a failing. In the first instance it should have raised and attended an emergency repair under its policy, to assess or make safe, as there was a risk of damage.
  2. After 13 working days had passed the resident made a complaint because he had not been given an appointment to resolve the leak, which was a continuing failing. While the repair may have been classed as non-urgent, which would not have been appropriate, or specialist, the landlord should have booked an appointment with him by this point.
  3. Illogically, as accepted within its stage 2 response, the landlord carried out a mould wash and painting before it had attended to repair the roof. These works only frustrated the resident further and showed it did not manage the repairs effectively. It attended to repair the roof after 32 working days which was within its specialist repairs policy timeframe. Helpfully its contractor provided a report and comment upon its repairs being temporary and that more work was needed. However, the landlord failed to adhere to this warning and recommendation, which it accepted was a failing within its stage 2 response.
  4. When the resident reported the roof was still leaking in April 2023 the landlord recalled the roofing repair. There is no evidence of any further works occurring which was a failing. Throughout May and June 2023, the resident had to continue to chase the landlord, via different methods, to get any attention from it, as he made clear the leak was still ongoing. He effectively had to plead with it to arrange a surveyor, which it only agreed to after it sent a supervisor and because of the social media posts the resident had made. The landlord should have sent a surveyor simply because the previous repairs had failed. There was an ongoing failing to fix the leak.
  5. The landlord had to cancel its planned inspection because it failed to put up scaffolding in time. By the time of its inspection 152 working days, or over 6 months, had passed since the leak was first reported. By 1 September 2023, having not completed any further repairs, it decided to cancel its works as there was a cyclical programme. There was no logic to its decision, and it only caused further delay, distress, inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble for the resident. It completed the repairs in December 2023, although further repairs were required up until July 2024.
  6. Within its stage 2 response the landlord accepted its failings and offered £150 compensation. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role 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 the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  7. There was maladministration. The landlord was slow to act, and while it did carry out repairs initially within its policy timeframe, it failed to once the leak continued. It failed to follow its contractor’s advice, delayed in surveying the roof and its communication with the resident was poor. Its combined delays and lack of meaningful updates caused considerable distress, frustration, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,150 compensation, which is inclusive of its offer at stage 2.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

  1. The resident made his stage 1 complaint on 26 January 2023, but the landlord has not provided any evidence that it acknowledged this within its policy timeframe which was a failing. It provided its response after 20 working days, which was in breach of its complaints policy and paragraph 5.1 of the Code.
  2. On 3 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive as he wanted to escalate the repairs. This was also an indication that he was not happy with its stage 1 response. On 19 and 20 June 2023 he asked to escalate his complaint. While the landlord did acknowledge escalation on 29 June 2023, this was 7 working days after his latest request, and was in breach of its complaints policy timeframe. The landlord should have escalated the complaint sooner, and not doing so delayed the process.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 22 working days after the resident’s last request to escalate, which was a failing under its policy and paragraph 5.13 of the Code. Within the response it said it could not find evidence of his request to escalate before 2 May 2023, and the Ombudsman has not found an earlier request within the evidence. It accepted there had been poor complaint handling and offered £200 compensation.
  4. In relation to the failures identified there was maladministration. While the landlord did accept there had been failings, and offered compensation, it should have more clearly stated its failings and apologised for them. To reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 compensation, which is inclusive of its offer at stage 2.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

  1. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
  2. The landlord has failed to produce, retain or supply a number of documents and pieces of evidence to this Service which has hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. These include:
    1. A full copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement including the clauses.
    2. Evidence of the resident’s initial contact on 9 January 2023.
    3. Notes from or evidence of its call to the resident on 14 February 2023.
    4. A record of the resident’s report of a roof leak on 5 April 2023.
    5. Any information on or records of its recalled roofing repair or whether this was completed.
    6. Evidence of or a report following its inspection on 17 May 2023.
    7. A copy of its report or notes following its inspection on 15 August 2023.
    8. Any information about or evidence of the roof replacement works it completed. No job sheets, inspections, before and after photographs, or start and completion dates have been provided.
  3. There was a lack of clear record keeping by the landlord and/or a lack of requesting relevant and important information and documents from its contractors. Its poor management of information was evident in it having to ask the resident if there was scaffolding at the property, and in writing to him about cyclical works when an active repair was already meant to have been arranged. This caused further frustration for the resident.
  4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management. To reflect the impact on the resident the landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repairs to a leaking roof.
    2. Handling of the formal complaint.
    3. Knowledge and information management.

Reasons

  1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the leaking roof as it delayed in making an appointment. While it completed the initial repair within its policy timeframe, it failed to follow its contractor’s advice. It was then slow to act and required the resident constantly chasing it before it completed a surveyor’s inspection. It failed to fully repair the roof for over 12 months.
  2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint as it did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint and was late with its stage 1 response. It delayed in escalating the complaint, was late in acknowledging it, and its stage 2 response was late in breach of its policy and the Code.
  3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management as it failed to record, obtain, retain or provide relevant documents and information relating to the complaint. Its poor record management caused it to ask the resident for information it should have known and write to him about future works it should have already arranged.

 

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology, from a senior member of its staff, to the resident for the failures detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £1,550 compensation made up of:
      1. £1,150 (inclusive of its £150 offer at stage 2) for the distress, frustration, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling repairs.
      2. £300 (inclusive of its £200 offer at stage 2) for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
      3. £100 for the frustration caused by its knowledge and information management failings.
    3. Provide a completion report or reports of the roofing works completed to this Service, including any water tests completed to prove the roof is now watertight.
    4. Remove all loft insulation and replace with new insulation material.
    5. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.