Peabody Trust (202324293)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324293

Peabody Trust

27 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for cyclical decoration works.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a flat, situated within a block. She bought the property in March 2006.
3. The resident raised a complaint over the phone on 19 May 2023. She initially said that she was unhappy that the landlord had not completed any updates to the communal area decorations since she moved in (in 2006). She did not feel 17 years without works was reasonable and wanted the landlord to complete decorations. In its stage 1 response of 5 June 2023, the landlord confirmed that its stock condition data for the property indicated that it was due to complete the external and internal communal decorations within 3 years. It was unable to provide a specific date due to budget restrictions and deferred works due to the impact of Covid-19. It confirmed that she could report essential repairs.
4. The resident initially escalated her complaint as she felt that by only completing the work every 17 to 20 years, the landlord was in breach of the lease agreement. She later added that her primary areas of concern were the carpet, which had a permanent stain, and the paintwork to the windowsills, banisters, internal walls, and external window frames.
5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 October 2023 and said that:
   1. It was responsible for cyclical repairs and re-decoration periodically to the internal and external parts of the building, but it was at its discretion as to when it would complete works. It did not feel it was in breach of the lease.
   2. It did not complete cyclical decorations unless necessary to ensure it was providing value for money and spending its sinking fund responsibly. It explained that decorations were not an essential or responsive repair as they were cosmetic. It considered the space to be in a reasonable condition, with no glaring issues other than the carpet. It confirmed she could report the stair banister as a repair as it was unsure which floor this was on.
   3. It was not failing to deliver a service she had paid for, adding that it would consult all leasehold residents when it proposed works due to the need to contribute via the service charge. It confirmed the current balance of the sinking fund and said that it needed to consider whether it was appropriate to complete decoration works due to the possible additional costs to leaseholders during the cost-of-living crisis.
   4. It was only able to conduct a certain number of planned projects each year. Regulatory changes, specifically to fire safety, and Covid-19 impacted its delivery of its planned projects and finances in the years prior to the complaint. It needed to prioritise certain projects over discretionary decorative improvements.
   5. It would schedule the cyclical works in because of the complaint. Its records indicate that it added the decoration work to its 2024-25 financial year programme on 11 October 2023. It acknowledged that there were delays in its complaint handling and communication failings which impacted the resident. It set out steps it had taken to improve its service moving forward and offered £300 compensation.
6. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she remained unhappy that the landlord had not completed cyclical decorative works since she moved in. She wanted the landlord to complete works immediately due to the condition of the building, and she did not believe it was meeting its obligations under the lease. The landlord has confirmed that the cyclical decorations are due to take place in February or March 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident has concerns that the landlord has breached the terms of the lease. The Ombudsman has explained that we cannot determine whether the landlord has breached the terms of the lease. This is something that a court would decide on. We will, however, consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to her concerns.
8. In her communication to this Service, the resident raised specific concern that the windows of the building were rotting due to the paintwork and varnish eroding over time. While she raised concerns about paintwork, these repairs did not form part of her complaint. The resident may wish to report this as a repair to the landlord in the first instance. If she remains dissatisfied with its response, she may wish to raise a separate complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for cyclical decoration works.

9. The landlord has not disputed that it is responsible for the decoration to the external and internal communal areas of the building in line with the lease agreement. It has not disputed that it would have been preferable for it to complete decoration works sooner. The resident requested that the landlord completed decoration works immediately and was unhappy that it had not done so since she bought the property in 2006.
10. While the Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s concern, decoration work is cosmetic and there were no apparent repair issues, other than to a banister, which may have impacted the resident’s use of the building. The landlord has no obligation to complete decorative works at set intervals and was not obligated to complete redecoration work immediately at her request. It acted reasonably by confirming that she could continue to report repair issues.
11. The landlord has an obligation to demonstrate to the Regulator of Social Housing that it meets certain standards in relation to its governance, financial viability, and value for money. This includes having clear plans for managing its resources effectively. Landlords are entitled to complete upgrade works of a significant cost, such as bathroom and kitchen renewals, window replacement programmes, and communal decoration works, as part of a planned programme of works to be carried out over a given financial year rather than on an ad hoc basis. This is unless the item in question is beyond economic repair.
12. The lease allows for the landlord to retain a reserve fund from the service charge paid by residents. This is to be used toward costs that are likely to arise at intervals of more than 1 year or once during the term of the lease. A sinking fund is money set aside by the landlord to cover major works or significant expenditure and allows landlords to cover the cost of works without significantly impacting the service charge each year. The landlord would usually plan its approach to delivering major works several years in advance as part of an asset management strategy so it can manage its budget to afford such works.
13. The resident has concern that there was sufficient money in reserve to complete works, but the landlord had not delivered this service. The landlord confirmed that it held approximately £71,000 in the reserve fund at the time of the complaint. The landlord’s explanation as to why it was not using the fund in response to her request at the time was reasonable and demonstrated that it had considered her request.
14. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm in its October 2023 response that it intended to include cyclical decoration works in either the 2023-24 or 2024-25 programmes. Given that there were 5 months remaining of the financial year at the time, and the remaining budget was likely to have been allocated, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to add this to the 2024-25 programme.
15. The stock condition data provided by the landlord indicates that it intended to consider completing internal and external decoration work to the building as part of its cyclical programme from 2022 onwards. The landlord acted reasonably by explaining that there had been circumstances, such as major fire safety works as a result of new regulations, and the impact of Covid-19, that impacted how it used its budget in the years prior to the complaint.
16. The Ombudsman finds it reasonable and appropriate that the landlord prioritised necessary works involving fire safety (following the Grenfell disaster) in response to regulations. It is also understandable that planned major works were deferred due to the restrictions and resourcing issues as a result of Covid-19 and it experienced additional costs which meant that decorative works were not a priority. Overall, the landlord’s explanation as to why it had not completed decorative works to the building sooner was reasonable.
17. The Ombudsman has not found any failing in how the landlord responded to the resident’s request that it complete cyclical decoration works to the building. It acted fairly and provided reasonable explanations as to why decorative works had not been a priority and managed her expectations as to when she could expect it to complete work.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

18. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it would aim to provide a response at stage 1 within 10 working days, and stage 2 within 20 working days of receipt. If it needs additional time to provide a response, it would explain the reason and provide a new response date, which should not usually exceed a further 10 working day.
19. The resident initially logged a complaint on 19 May 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 5 June 2023, within its published timescales. She initially asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 7 June 2023. However, the landlord did not acknowledge her request until 29 August 2023 and failed to provide its stage 2 complaint response until 10 October 2023.
20. The landlord did not dispute that there had been delays and poor communication at both stages, as well as the cumulative impact on the resident due to the multiple failings. Where a landlord admits to failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
21. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident. It put things right by offering £300 compensation for the impact caused to her. It demonstrated that it had learnt from the complaint by explaining that it was in the process of centralising its complaints team to avoid individual staff members becoming “overloaded” with cases and hiring additional staff to ensure its response times to complaints were less impacted by staff absence or unexpected increases in the number of complaints.
22. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for cyclical decoration works.
24. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress, prior to investigation, in respect of its handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

25. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pays the resident £300 as previously offered and contacts the resident to provide a date for the cyclical decoration works if it has not already done so.
26. It should confirm its intentions to this Service within 6 weeks.