Peabody Trust (202329745)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329745

Peabody Trust

7 August 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 reports of internal and external repairs to the property.
  2. The report has also taken the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint into consideration.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant with the landlord. She moved into the 2 bed second floor flat with her daughter on 6 June 2022 following a mutual exchange with the same landlord. The landlord has confirmed the resident has several health conditions.
  2. The resident said she raised 2 concerns immediately after moving in, however from the evidence provided, the first repair (regarding the guttering/downpipe) was reported in October 2022. Mould treatment was then applied in December 2022 when it was noted the extractor fan could be the cause and should be serviced and repaired as required. While the fan was repaired in March 2023, there is limited evidence of any other repairs being completed.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 27 April 2023 about the downpipe, missing paving slabs and the heating/boiler. She told the landlord she needed to be rehoused as the property condition was impacting her health. She said she was not told the flat was on top of a car park when she exchanged properties and would not have moved if she had known. The resident noted her frustration stating the landlord knew she moved for medical reasons.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 30 June 2023 confirmed repairs had been raised for the 3 issues raised. It said it would review the repair and complaint journey when the repairs were completed to determine if compensation was appropriate.
  5. The resident asked this Service for assistance with progressing her complaint and we contacted the landlord on 27 February 2024 – the landlord escalated the complaint on 29 February 2024. The resident said the landlord had not completed the repairs and the property condition continued to affect her health.
  6. In its final complaint response dated 14 March 2024, the landlord said it was still waiting for information so could not provide an update. It acknowledged several service failures and listed developments that had been made to improve service delivery. £950 was offered for the delays, time and inconvenience and poor complaint handling.

Post completion of the complaint process

  1. It is evident the resident continued to experience issues with the property and the landlord with missed appointments and a lack of communication or progress. The resident repeatedly asked the landlord to rehouse her stating both she and her daughter had to stay with friends regularly as they could not live in the property. In May 2024, the landlord said it was focused on the repairs, but following contact from the landlord in August 2024, this Service has not received confirmation that all the repairs have been completed.

Assessment and findings

  1. Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to the impact the property conditions have had on her and her daughter’s health. While we do not doubt this, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. If the resident wishes to pursue this issue, she should seek legal advice. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.
  2. The resident referred to the extractor fans in the car park below her property as the root cause of a lot of the concerns with her health which she states have rendered the flat unsuitable for habitation. In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (at the time of the complaint), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, 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. This was not raised as part of the complaint; therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to assess the landlord’s response. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, if she has not already done so, she should raise a new complaint with the landlord.

Internal and external repairs

  1. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this Service’s ability to complete a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points in the report. This is a failure in itself and contributed to other failures identified in the report.

External downpipe

  1. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the resident first reported this matter. While she said it was noisy due to a lack of foam soundproofing, dripped rainwater and whistled in the wind, there is no repair record to reflect this description. A repair was raised on 14 October 2022 but was categorised as blocked guttering. Due to a lack of repairs evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to determine if the landlord responded in line with its repair obligations. As the resident reported this again in her complaint in April 2023, it is presumed the issue was not resolved.
  2. In the stage 1 complaint, the landlord confirmed it had raised a repair and the appointment would be confirmed within 5 working days. There is no evidence of this appointment confirmation but the landlord’s internal notes state the repair was completed on 6 July 2023. It acknowledged no further notes were available, therefore this does not provide confirmation as to what repair was completed and if it was successful. Furthermore, as the resident raised this as an outstanding issue in her escalation request, and again in July 2024, it suggests it has not been completed successfully and still requires attention. The Ombudsman finds it unreasonable that the landlord has been unable to evidence a successfully completed repair.

Missing paving slabs

  1. There is no evidence to confirm this was reported to the landlord prior to the stage 1 complaint. Although the landlord confirmed it had raised a repair, like the downpipe repair, an appointment date was not given. This was also taken through the escalation process, yet there is no repair record for its completion. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable and supports the previous concerns regarding poor repair management. In addition, the resident stated the standing water was entering the property causing damp and mould. This raises an additional concern regarding the landlord’s understanding of the situation and how the lack of action was contributing to other problems within the property.

Damp and mould and condensation

  1. There is no evidence of the resident reporting damp and mould due to the windows and floors and condensation in the double-glazed unit until October 2023. There is evidence of repairs raised for a broken window frame, and blown windows in the living and bedroom, but there is no suggestion these repairs were linked to damp, mould or condensation. The landlord’s records state the resident refused to confirm the appointment therefore there is no evidence of these repairs being completed.
  2. Following the completion of the complaint process, a surveyor completed a ‘very quick assessment’ of the flat in March 2024. He said it was a new build property and the windows were in good condition, but a further investigation may be required. An external contractor surveyed the property on 25 June 2024, but there was nothing in the report regarding the windows. There is no evidence of any further work being completed on the windows, yet in July 2024, the resident confirmed this to be an outstanding repair. The Ombudsman finds it unreasonable that no further inspection has been arranged if the resident continued to report this as outstanding.
  3. With regards to damp and mould, the landlord’s surveyor confirmed there was no damp and mould observed in March 2024. It is reasonable to accept the findings of a trained member of staff and this was confirmed by an external surveyor in June 2024. However, in an update received from the landlord in August 2024, it confirmed that on 26 June 2024 a damp and mould investigation and mould wash was to be completed. Although no appointment date was provided, the inconsistency in the landlord’s findings and actions demonstrate that it does not have complete oversight and understanding as to whether this is a concern to be resolved. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable.

Cracks in the wall in the living room

  1. This was raised within the complaint escalation, with no evidence of it being previously reported. The landlord was unable to provide an update in its final complaint response, but 3 months later, it confirmed to the resident that a repair was to be completed. There was no evidence of an assessment of the wall, a diagnosis into the root cause of the cracks, or if there was a safety concern (the resident had told the landlord the wall looked like it was going to collapse).
  2. Although a repair was confirmed, it took a further month for the appointment date to be confirmed. The repair was due to take place on 4 August 2024, 5 months after the escalation request. Without justification regarding the time taken, the Ombudsman finds the delay and lack of communication around this issue unreasonable.

Damp smell in the hallway

  1. Within the complaint escalation, the resident reported a smell of damp in the communal hallway. The landlord has not provided any information or update as to how it responded to this matter. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable as it fails to show a willingness to investigate and resolve the issue reported which in turn is likely to frustrate the resident further.

The boiler and heating

  1. In the stage 1 complaint response on 30 June 2023, the landlord confirmed it had raised a repair for the boiler and heating after the resident said she had been waiting months for a repair. While the landlord confirmed the appointment for 5 July 2023, it has not provided any evidence to confirm the visit went ahead or what the outcome was. As the same issue was raised in the complaint escalation, it suggests the issue with the heating remained unresolved.
  2. On 26 June 2024, the landlord confirmed the boiler repair would be completed, but did not provide an appointment date. In further contact dated 31 July 2024, it said the appointment was still to be confirmed. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable. The resident first raised this on 27 April 2023, yet 16 months later, there is no evidence to confirm the landlord had resolved the heating issues which had been raised as a concern for the resident and her health.

Repairs summary

  1. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the internal and external repairs. There were repeated instances of poor record keeping, lack of communication to the resident and a lack of progress. The landlord showed an ineffective approach to repair management and inconsistencies in its understanding of the progress that had been made. Due to the lack of effective monitoring and record keeping, the landlord had to ask the resident to confirm if repairs had been completed. The landlord did not demonstrate an understanding of how the concerns raised were affecting the resident and her daughter’s health, and there is no evidence to demonstrate it assessed the vulnerability of the resident in relation to the property condition.
  2. The landlord used its compensation and remedies policy and in its final complaint response offered the maximum compensation of £650 in recognition of the repair delays and time, trouble and inconvenience. In line with the remedies guidance of this Service, this level of compensation is what we would expect to see for a finding of maladministration where there has been a significant impact on the resident. While the offer was proportionate to the failings identified, because the repairs remain outstanding and the landlord did not act in accordance with the assurances it offered in its complaint responses, this shows the landlord has not put things right or taken sufficient learning from the mistakes made – a finding of maladministration is therefore still appropriate.

Associated complaint

  1. When the resident submitted her complaint on 27 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged it on 4 May 2023. While this was within the timescale stated in the landlord’s complaints policy, it did not confirm the complaint definition, or provide a response date. It is noted that this does not form part of the landlord’s complaint policy, however the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) recommends the acknowledgement should include this detail as it allows each party to confirm their understanding of the issues raised.
  2. It took the landlord 43 working days to provide its stage 1 response, which was outside the policy timescale of 10 working days. The landlord has not provided any evidence of communication updates with the resident through the complaint process. This does not comply with the Code, or its policy which states any extension over 20 working days should be explained and agreed with the resident. The lack of contact from the landlord and the lack of apology or explanation regarding the delay is likely to have increased the frustration of the resident which the Ombudsman finds unreasonable.
  3. The landlord’s response confirmed repairs had been raised for those highlighted in the complaint but only provided an appointment date for one of the repairs. As the complaint had already been active for a prolonged period, the Ombudsman finds it unreasonable that these dates could not be provided. Furthermore, by simply confirming the repairs had been raised, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not demonstrate a thorough and fair investigation. It did not provide any review of the history of the repairs (which the resident had said had been reported previously). Therefore, it did not take the opportunity to identify any service failures or learning from the service provided. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable and raises concerns with the landlord’s complaint management.
  4. The complaint was escalated on 27 February 2024 and was acknowledged on 29 February 2024. The final complaint response dated 14 March 2024 was within the 20-working day target and confirmed all the issues to be investigated. The landlord apologised for the delays and explained these were due to changes in the repairs structure, staffing and insufficient handovers. It was reasonable of the landlord to explain these delays. It confirmed it was unable to provide any repair update as it was waiting for the surveyor’s report from 22 February 2024. It said it would contact her further with a schedule of work and a further offer of redress. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable. The landlord should have an effective complaint management process whereby it can obtain any necessary reports or information in a timely manner so it can provide residents with updates within the policy timescales. There is insufficient evidence of the landlord chasing this information which had a negative impact on the update it could provide.
  5. Within the response the landlord acknowledged the poor complaint management, again siting insufficient handovers. It apologised for the failures identified and recognised the poor service, communication and inconvenience experienced by the resident. It confirmed it had considered the resident’s vulnerability and health and acknowledged the impact would have been greater than otherwise. In line with its compensation policy, the landlord offered the maximum compensation of £300 for poor complaint handling.
  6. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman finds maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. While it demonstrated a series of improvements made to its service delivery, the landlord failed to identify a significant error in its response letters which at both stages included the resident’s previous address. This was also apparent in several emails relating to the complaint. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable and shows a lack of focus and effective communication and record keeping.
  7. Furthermore, the landlord confirmed it would contact the resident with a schedule of work and a reviewed compensation offer. Although there was evidence of emails between the landlord and resident in June and July 2024, these did not provide a full schedule for all the repairs raised. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord has not taken effective learning from the case in terms of communication and progress. On this basis, while the initial compensation offered was proportionate, a finding of maladministration is still appropriate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52, of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of internal and external repairs to the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52, of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Write a letter of apology to the resident for the failings identified within the report.
    2. Confirm it has paid the £950 compensation as agreed in the final complaint response. The landlord should provide evidence to confirm these payments have been made to the resident.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should:
    1. arrange an inspection of the property by a senior member of management to confirm all the work that remains outstanding and in need of repair;
    2. write to the resident confirm the repairs that will be completed to address the concerns raised and clearly communicate the appointment dates to her to ensure no further delays are experienced;
    3. confirm what arrangements it intends to make to post-inspect the work to ensure it has been completed to an acceptable standard.
  3. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should make a compensation award to reflect the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident from its March 2024 final complaint response up to the proposed end date of the remedial works.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 54g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should complete a full case review to identify why failings occurred with its repairs management and complaint handling. While it should include all elements of the complaint, particular focus should be placed on ensuring accuracy in its complaint responses, ensuring the complaints team has sufficient access to repairs records and having systems in place so that repairs can be managed to completion following a complaint response. The review should identify any learning points highlighted and the landlord should confirm to this Service and the resident how it aims to address these.
  5. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the orders above within the specified timescales.