Peabody Trust (202327027)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327027

Peabody Trust

21 March 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about cyclical works to the property.
    2. Reports of a leak and repairs to the roof.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which began in May 1987. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident by the landlord.
  2. The resident reported missing tiles from the roof in July 2022. A roofer attended around 20 July 2022 and noted:
    1. They could not find evidence on the front or rear of missing or sloped tiles even though the resident showed them the slates they said had fallen off.
    2. There was limited access to see the rear of the roof so the landlord was to decide if scaffolding should be erected for further investigation.
    3. The neighbour in the flat below had allowed access for the inspection, but they said they would not allow scaffolding to be erected.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 16 August 2022 that the repair had been closed without notification. He said the missing tiles should be replaced to prevent any damage being caused to the property. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 August 2022 and noted that the repair had been reopened.
  4. The landlord advised the contractors on 21 December 2022 that the neighbour had agreed to provide access for scaffolding to be installed. It asked them to contact the neighbour to agree a date and time for the works. On 4 August 2023 the landlord said the repair had been closed without a resolution for the resident. It noted repairs were needed to resolve damp and to address missing tiles and lead flashing which had become loose. The resident also reported a leak on 17 August 2023 from the roof window due to the outstanding works to replace missing tiles.
  5. The landlord advised the resident on 18 August 2023 that the neighbour granted access in January 2023. The resident disagreed and said the repairs remained were still outstanding. He also contacted this Service for advice on 7 November 2023 and said the landlord had not responded to his complaints. We contacted the landlord on 14 November 2023 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 5 December 2023.
  6. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 29 November 2023. It explained that it had experienced difficulties in getting access to erect scaffolding. It confirmed that its contractor would attend on 6 and 7 December 2023 to investigate further and report back. The landlord assured the resident that any damage caused due to the leak would be resolved on completion of the works. It apologised for the poor service and the delays and offered £50 as compensation. The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 28 December 2023. He said it was taking too long to resolve the repair.
  7. The landlord provided a further stage 1 response on 16 July 2024. It acknowledged there had been ongoing problems with the roof since 2019, but it was only able to investigate repairs raised within 12 months of the complaint. The landlord said it was able to gain access to the neighbour’s property on 3 July 2023 to get the process started for the repairs. It offered the resident £425 for the distress and inconvenience.
  8. We wrote to the landlord on 1 August and 2 September 2024 and asked it to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The landlord provided the resident a response at stage 1 on 10 September 2024. It upheld the complaint due to the delay in carrying out the repairs and apologised for the poor service. The landlord also offered a total of £900 for the distress and inconvenience caused. It assured the resident that the works would be monitored to completion following which it would consider if additional compensation should be awarded.

Events after the complaints process was exhausted

  1. The landlord noted on 25 September 2024 that scaffolding had been installed.
  2. The resident advised us in November 2024 that the repairs were still outstanding, and he was unhappy with the extreme delays. He said he had been ill with chest infections due to the condition of the property.
  3. The resident informed us during our telephone conversation on 7 March 2025 that the works to the roof started in February 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s concerns that the repair to the roof had been outstanding since 2019. We have not seen evidence to confirm this. The evidence indicates the landlord addressed a complaint made by the resident about repairs around this period. It is not certain if this was about the roof as we have not seen a copy of the response. The resident was able to contact us if he remained dissatisfied. However, we have no record any contact from her. If the resident remained dissatisfied.
  2. Based on the evidence the resident reported repairs to the roof in July 2022 and subsequently raised a formal complaint in August 2022. Therefore, we are not able to consider the events that occurred in 2019 due to the time that has passed. We may not investigate matters that were not brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.a. of the scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  3. After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint about cyclical works falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. We have no evidence that the complaint about cyclical works has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. We have advised the resident to pursue the complaint with the landlord and contact us if they remain dissatisfied with the stage 2 response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and repairs to the roof

  1. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord agrees to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property (including the roof, gutter, downpipes and drains).
  2. Its repairs policy states it will aim to:
    1. Provide a good and reliable service to its residents and treat all feedback as a learning opportunity to improve services.
    2. Resolve non-urgent repair within 28 calendar days (average target of 10 working days).
    3. Resolve specialist works within 60 calendar days (average target of 33 days).
  3. The landlord inspected the property in July 2022 in response to the resident’s report of missing tiles to the roof. While the inspection report noted there was no visible damage, the operative suggested scaffolding may be required to fully assess the condition of the roof through the neighbour’s property. They said the neighbour in the flat below advised they would not allow access for scaffolding to be erected. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not follow this up. Due to dissatisfaction expressed by the resident around 16 August 2022 the landlord reopened the case for further investigation.
  4. There is evidence of poor communication regarding the repair between the landlord and its contractors which led to further delays. We have seen from the repairs log that the resident repeatedly advised the landlord between August and December 2022 that it needed to arrange access with the neighbour below his flat to inspect the roof. The landlord noted in its internal emails on 21 December 2022 that the neighbour had agreed to give access, but the evidence indicates the case was closed. There is a gap in the evidence provided (from January until August 2023). There is no evidence the landlord took any action at this time.
  5. The resident reported further damage to the roof (between 4 August and 17 August 2023) including a leak from the roof window and damp in the property. The landlord asked the resident if any works had started because its records indicated the neighbour gave access in January 2023. The resident said scaffolding had not been installed and works had not started. Based on the resident’s response, the landlord missed an opportunity to install scaffolding after it had previously noted that the neighbour agreed access. This means the resident had waited approximately 12 months for the landlord to carry out follow on actions since its visit in July 2022. This is not appropriate.
  6. The resident made several calls to the landlord in September 2023 and continued to report damage to the property due to the leak from the roof. The landlord did not log the repair until 21 September 2023. We have not seen records of appointments offered, dates of visit and any findings from its visits. However, we have noted the resident contacted the landlord on 17 October 2023 to reschedule an appointment. The records do not confirm what the appointment was for and if this was rescheduled as requested. This shows poor monitoring of the case and failure to keep accurate record of actions on the repair.
  7. In its stage 1 response on 29 November 2023 the landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It assured the resident that works would start in December 2023 and offered him £50 as compensation. We have not seen evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated, thereby failing to monitor or commit to the actions agreed. He continued to incur time and trouble in chasing up the repair between December 2023 and April 2024,and asked for our intervention in addressing the matter.
  8. On 6 June 2024 the resident said the damp in the kitchen was making him ill and causing him great distress. While its damp and mould policy recognise its presence in a property can pose serious risk to health and safety, the landlord did not take a proactive approach in dealing with the matter. This is not appropriate.
  9. The landlord noted in its internal communications, and its complaint responses that the repairs were delayed due to access problems. However, we have seen from the evidence that the neighbour:
    1. Gave the landlord access in July 2022 to inspect the roof.
    2. Agreed to give the contractors access to install scaffolding in December 2022.
    3. Allowed access to install scaffolding on 3 July 2024, but the works could not go ahead because the wrong operative was booked.
  10. Therefore, it is clear the delays were not mainly due to difficulties in gaining access, but failure by the landlord to pursue the repairs in a proactive manner. This led to unnecessary delays which caused the resident distress and frustration.
  11. The landlord acknowledged it had not handled the repair to the expected standards, in a further stage 1 response around 16 July 2024 and its stage 2 response on 10 September 2024. Below is a summary of the responses:
    1. Stage 1 response 16 July 2024:
      1. There had been on-going issues with the roof since 2019, but it would only go as far back as September 2023 when the resident reported a leak. Its policy would only allow it look into issues raised within 12 months.
      2. The landlord apologised for the persistent issues, the inconvenience caused, and the poor level of service experienced.
      3. The scaffolding drawings had been submitted for quotes and approval.
      4. It would improve communications between its repairs service and neighbourhood management when dealing with repairs.
      5. The landlord offered £400 for the inconvenience and distress caused.
    2. Stage 2 response 10 September 2024:
      1. There had been unreasonable delays to the roof repairs and resolving internal repairs, caused by the leak (including damp and mould treatment and review of any damage caused by water ingress).
      2. It would monitor the repairs until completion. This would include the internal works to resolve damp and mould in the kitchen and a review of damage due to water ingress.
      3. The landlord offered £500 as compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused. It said it would check the resident was satisfied with the works, following completion, and consider if further compensation should be awarded.
  12. In summary it is unreasonable that the landlord disregarded the resident’s previous repair requests, especially since it had not evidenced measures taken to put things right. However, the Ombudsman welcomes the steps taken to resolve the longstanding repairs. The landlord acknowledged the resident had waited an unreasonable amount of time for the repairs and put a plan in place to resolve this. The landlord offered a total of £950 as redress which reflects the extensive disruption to the resident for a prolonged period, in line with its compensation policy.
  13. The landlord updated the resident by email on 25 September 2024 that scaffolding had been installed on 18 September 2024. However, the resident contacted us in November and December 2024 and said that the landlord had not communicated any plans regarding the repairs. He said the condition of the property had become worse and he had been ill with chest infections. While the landlord said it had learned some lessons from its handling of the case, the resident experienced further disruption, time and trouble and uncertainty.
  14. Due to the above and failures identified in its information management, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and repairs to the roof.

The handling of the associated complaints

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its employees or those acting on its behalf. It would aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The policy further states that:
    1. All complaints should be submitted within six months of when the event occurred so that it can be investigated effectively.
    2. In exceptional circumstances it may use its discretion when considering whether to accept a complaint submitted outside of this six-month timescale.
  3. We have not seen evidence of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint raised in August 2022. However, the resident revisited the matter in a telephone call to the landlord on 17 August 2023 and in several emails in the same month, that he was not happy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. The landlord did not raise this as a formal complaint even though its policy states the word “complaint” does not have to be used for it to be treated as such. It took intervention from this Service before the landlord provided a formal response on 29 November 2023. While the landlord responded, it failed to address the resident’s complaint about cyclical works. This is not appropriate.
  4. The resident also experienced delays with the stage 2 complaint raised on 28 December 2023 and 29 January 2024. The landlord provided another stage 1 response around 16 July 2024 and offered the resident £25 for the delays in responding to the complaint. It also advised the resident he could request the escalation of the complaint to stage 2. This would have been confusing for the resident as he had already made the request.
  5. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 10 September 2024 (approximately 9 months after the complaint was raised) which was far outside the timescales set out in its complaints policy. This is not appropriate. It acknowledged there were severe delays in responding to the resident’s complaints. It also apologised for the inconvenience and offered the resident £400 as redress. It revised its previous offer of £25 to £150 on 25 September 2024 bringing the total compensation to £550. This was in line with its compensation policy where severe failures in complaint handling have caused significant impact to the resident.
  6. The landlord advised the resident, in all its responses, that it was unable to look at the historical issues even though they were relevant to the issues raised. It said restrictions in its policy would only allow it to investigate incidents raised within 12 months of them occurring. The evidence shows the resident raised a formal complaint in August 2022 about the repairs, but the landlord has not provided evidence of its response. If the landlord felt it had satisfactorily addressed the previous issues it should have explained this in its response. It did not do this, nor did it consider if there were exceptional reasons it could backdate its investigation in line with its policy. This is not appropriate.
  7. Following the stage 2 response the resident contacted us in November 2024, and said the landlord had not kept him updated following actions agreed. This is not in line with its complaints policy. There is evidence of some learning as its complaints team kept in close communication with the repairs team and the resident between December and February 2025. It advised the resident that works would start around 13 February 2025.
  8. However, failure to monitor the actions agreed at an earlier stage caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. Also, the landlord did not learn from its failure to consider the full history of the case in its investigation. It is for these reasons that we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about cyclical works to the property is outside our jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and repairs to the roof.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to carry out the following:
    1. A senior member of the landlord staff to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the amount of £1800 comprised of:
      1. £1250 (inclusive of its offer of £950) for the distress and inconvenience caused due to its handling of the repairs.
      2. £550 (offered after its stage 2 response on 25 September 2024) for the time and trouble and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings.
      3. The landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it has already paid in relation to this complaint.
      4. Any awards of compensation should be paid directly to the resident.
    3. Contact the resident and arrange a survey to the property to determine any outstanding repairs to remedy the leak, including damp and mould treatment. The landlord should provide the resident a written action plan, including a timeframe for the completion of any outstanding works. A copy to be provided to this Service.
    4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.
  2. In previous investigations carried out by the Ombudsman the landlord was ordered to:
    1. Review failings in its repairs management and complaint handling.
    2. Carry out a self-assessment against this Service’s knowledge and information management (KIM) report.
  3. The landlord has provided evidence of compliance with these orders. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further orders around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account.

Recommendations

  1. As part of the stage 2 complaint the resident raised concerns about cyclical works. The landlord should respond to the complaint if it has not already done so.