Peabody Trust (202339413)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339413

Peabody Trust

17 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlords handling of:
1. Repairs following a roof leak.
2. The complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom first floor flat. She has an assured tenancy with a housing association landlord. The tenancy started in February 2022.
The resident reported a leaking roof to the landlord on 18 November 2022. She said that water marks had appeared on the ceiling and chimney breast in her bedroom.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 25 April 2023. In her complaint the resident said:
1. She reported the leak on 18 November 2022.
2. The landlord raised a repair and subsequently cancelled it without giving a reason.
3. The landlord made an appointment to investigate the leak on 7 December 2022 but failed to attend.
4. A surveyor attended her property on 16 December 2022, took a photo, and said that someone would contact her to arrange for scaffolding to be erected at the property.
5. She contacted the landlord on 3 January and 22 February 2023 for an update on the repair and was told by the landlord that external repairs would be completed before internal works.
6. Her personal belongings had been damaged by the water ingress.
7. She wanted the landlord to provide a timescale to start the external works and internal redecoration.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 22 May 2023. In its response the landlord set out its understanding of the resident’s complaint and her desired resolution. Additionally, the landlord:
1. Confirmed that it had cancelled an appointment to inspect the leak on 24 November 2023. It said that it did not know why it had cancelled the appointment.
2. Said it made another appointment for 7 December and 16 December 2022, but on both occasions the resident was not at home. It acknowledged the resident disagreed with this.
3. Said its contractor investigated the leak on 16 January 2023 and provided a copy of its report to the landlord on 9 February 2023. The landlord said the report evidenced:
  1. Several wet and damp patches.
  2. Repairs needed to the brickwork.
  3. A damaged gutter pipe.
  4. A need for scaffolding to investigate the rear extension roof and valleys.
4. Said delays since February 2023 had been because of issues with the availability of scaffolding.
5. Had scheduled works for 24 and 25 May 2023.
6. Would monitor the progress of the repairs and consider awarding compensation to the resident once it had completed the repairs.
The resident escalated her complaint during a telephone call with the landlord on 7 June 2023.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 June 2023 and responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 24 July 2023. The landlord repeated its stage 1 response. Additionally, it:
1. Acknowledged the works had not started on 24 May 2023.
2. Explained the delay in starting the works was because of the costs involved.
3. Said the scaffolding was erected on 20 June 2023 and a roof inspection carried out the following day.
4. Was waiting for a date for the works to be completed.
5. Confirmed it would conduct an internal inspection of the property on 7 August 2023 and agree a plan for completion of remedial works inside the property once it had carried out the inspection.
6. Expected residents to have contents insurance to cover any damage to personal belongings, but would review her claim for compensation, if she submitted one.
7. Said it had explained the importance of communication to its contractors.
8. Apologised:
  1. For the impact on the resident caused by the delay completing the roof repairs, and the lack of communication with her.
  2. That the delay in repairing the roof had caused damp and mould in her property.
  3. For its delay in acknowledging her complaint at both stages of its internal complaints process.
9. Offered the resident a total of £700 for its failings, which comprised of:
  1. £600 for the impact of the delays on the resident, and the inconvenience it had caused.
  2. £100 for the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failure to acknowledge her complaint within its published timescale.
10. It would monitor the repairs through to completion and contact the resident to confirm she was satisfied with the repairs before closing the complaint. Additionally, it said on completion of the repairs it would consider if further compensation was appropriate.

Post internal complaints process

Following the stage 2 response there were further delays in carrying out the repairs. In an email on 12 November 2023 the resident told the landlord that despite contractors carrying out the external repairs she was still experiencing water penetration to the kitchen and bathroom. Additionally, she said water stains had reappeared on the walls. She explained that she was using 2 dehumidifiers as suggested by the landlord, but they had become expensive to run.
The contractor submitted its completion report for the roof repair to the landlord on 3 January 2024.
The resident has told us that she continues to experience water ingress through the chimney breast and through a roof window. Additionally, she said the landlord completed the internal decoration prior to finishing the external repointing of walls and consequently the new plaster had blown.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs following a roof leak

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters and external pipes, and the roof of the property.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out different timescales dependant on the type of repair. Its description of a ‘programmed repair’ includes roofing works with scaffolding, and states it aims to complete this type of repair within 60 calendar days.
Additionally, it describes a ‘recall repair’ as one where the resident has confirmed that works have not been completed. The landlord aims to resolve this type of repair within 5 calendar days.
Following the resident’s report of the leak on 18 November 2022 the landlord made a request for the repair to be sent out to tender, and to assign a contractor to carry out the repairs. However, the repair request was cancelled. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show why it was cancelled. This is unreasonable.
Additionally, the landlord said its contractor attended the property on 2 further occasions on 7 December and 16 December 2022 and reported that the resident was not at home. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence of its contractors attendance at the property. As set out in our spotlight report on repairs, published in March 2019, it is important that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records, including details of appointments. It is unreasonable that the landlord failed to have adequate records of its contractor’s attendance at the resident’s property.
Where a landlord contracts out its repairs, the obligation for the repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Landlords must ensure they have adequate oversight of any outsourced services.
It took the landlord’s contractor until 16 January 2023 to inspect the property, this was 59 days after the resident first reported the leak. It took a further 24 days for the contractor to send its inspection report to the landlord. This was an unreasonable delay. Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord chased its contractor for an update on the inspection. The landlord had exceeded its published timescale for carrying out the repair before any work started at the resident’s property. This was not appropriate.
Despite the landlord stating in its stage 1 response that it had asked its contractors to keep the resident updated of progress, we have not seen any evidence of this. This is not reasonable.
In its stage 1 response the landlord told the resident it would start works on 24 May 2023 and said there would be one single point of contact to keep the resident updated with progress. However, the landlord failed to start the works on that date. This was unreasonable. The landlord contacted the resident about the delay on 7 June 2023 and told her it had chased its contractor about the delay. However, we have not seen evidence of this.
Scaffolding was erected at the property on 20 June 2023 and the following day the landlord’s contractor inspected the roof and produced a report of its findings and recommendations for the roof and chimney repair.
An initial inspection of the property on 16 January 2023 found evidence of water ingress and made a recommendation for further investigation of the rear roof extension. It was therefore unreasonable that it took the landlord until 21 June 2023 to carry out the investigation. The delay caused the resident distress and frustration and delayed the roof repair.
At the time of responding to the stage 2 complaint on 24 July 2023 the roof repairs were still outstanding. This was not appropriate. It had been 248 days since the resident reported the leak, this far exceeded the landlord’s published timescale for a roofing repair and was not appropriate.
The landlord’s failure to carry out the repairs to the roof within its published timescale caused detriment to the resident who explained that her belongings had been damaged by the water ingress. She said that she was frustrated by the lack of progress and lack of communication from the landlord.
In its final response the landlord apologised for its failings and offered the resident £600 compensation for the impact on her and the inconvenience the delays caused.
Additionally, it said it would keep in contact with her and consider a further offer of compensation once the repairs were completed.

Post internal complaints process

Following the final response there were further delays in completing the external and internal repairs. The repairs to the roof started on or around 7 August 2023. On 21 August 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the roof felt, and batons had been exposed since 8 August 2023 and rain had further damaged her belongings. She also said there had been water ingress from the roof window.
The landlord inspected the property on 7 September 2023 and identified outstanding repairs which it said would be completed on 11 September 2023. It also said that once the external works had been completed, which it said included repointing of walls, it would schedule the internal works.
According to the landlord’s completion report the internal works were completed on 6 November 2023. The contractors completion report showed that the roof repair was completed on 3 January 2024.
On 4 January 2024 the landlord noted that it would need to speak with the resident about the repairs and consider further compensation. However, there is no evidence that it did this.
Between 3 January and 10 April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord on at least 4 occasions to report that she was still experiencing water ingress. She said it was causing her distress and frustration.
When a landlord acknowledges its failings, as is the case here, we will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we consider 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.
Although the landlord offered the resident the maximum amount of compensation (as set out in its policy at that time), it failed to put things right. The repairs were still outstanding for at least a further 160 days after the landlord’s final response. In total it took the landlord 411 to complete the repairs. This far exceeded the landlord’s published timescale for a repair of this type and was not appropriate.
Additionally, prior to and following the completion of the repair the resident expressed concerns to the landlord about the quality of the repairs, and the landlord’s lack of communication with her. However, the landlord failed to respond to her concerns. She has also told us that she continues to experience water ingress.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that where the resident confirms that works have not been completed the contractor must return to correct the defect within 5 calendar days. The landlord failed to respond to her concerns and failed to correct the reported defects within the published timescale. This was not appropriate.
Having carefully considered the evidence available we find maladministration for the landlord’s handling of repairs following a roof leak. The delays in completing the repair were unreasonable and excessive. The landlord failed to keep the resident regularly updated of its progress which she said caused distress and frustration. Additionally, it failed to respond to her ongoing concerns regarding the water ingress following the repair completion report.
Although the landlord made some attempt to put things right, it did not learn from its failings and did not have regard for the detriment to the resident of the outstanding repairs.
When considering an offer of compensation we have referred to the landlord’s compensation policy. At the time of the complaint the compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of the repairs was the maximum amount set out in its policy. However, the repairs remained outstanding for at least a further 160 days after the final response. This had a significant impact on the resident who did not have any clear timescale from the landlord about the completion of the repairs. The compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the failings identified.
We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident a further £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs.
Additionally, the landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay £2 each day per dehumidifier up to a total of 60 days. However, despite the resident telling the landlord that using the dehumidifiers had put a strain on her finances, the landlord failed to offer any compensation for this.
The landlord’s records do not show the total number days the resident used the dehumidifiers; therefore, we are unable to quantify how much compensation the landlord must pay for this. However, we will order the landlord to consult its records and confirm with the resident the total number of days the resident used each of the dehumidifiers. The landlord must pay the correct amount of compensation for this, in accordance with its policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond formally at stage 1 within 10 working days, and stage 2 within 20 working days of the escalation request being received.
The policy states that at both stages of the complaint’s process the landlord will contact the resident if it requires additional time to provide a response. However, it states this should not exceed a further 10 working days.
In the landlord’s final response it apologised for failing to acknowledge the resident’s complaint at both stages of the process and offered her £100 for the inconvenience this caused. This was appropriate.
However, it took the landlord 18 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This exceeds the landlord’s published timescale for a response and there is no evidence that additional time was agreed with the resident. This was not appropriate.
At stage 2 of the complaint’s process, it took the landlord 34 working days form the date it received the escalated complaint to respond. This exceeded the landlord’s published timescale. Although the landlord told the resident it would need additional time to respond to the complaint, it did not do this until 10 July 2023, which was 24 working days after it had received the complaint. This was not appropriate.
Additionally, in its final response the landlord told the resident it would contact her once the repairs were completed to confirm that she was satisfied with the repairs. However, it failed to do this. This was not reasonable.
The landlord also said it would consider whether any further award of compensation should be made following the completion of the works. It failed to consider any further award of compensation. This was unreasonable.
Having carefully considered the evidence available, the landlord offered compensation for its failure to acknowledge the resident’s complaints. However, it did not acknowledge that it responded to complaints outside of its published timescales. Additionally, it failed to consider a further award of compensation as referred to in its stage 2 response.
The compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the failings identified and the inconvenience to the resident of the delayed responses. We therefore find service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling.
In considering an offer of compensation we have referred to the landlord’s compensation policy in use at the time of the complaint, which sets out different levels of compensation dependant on the severity of its complaint handling failure. It sets a maximum award of £150 for a failure to follow its complaints policy resulting in inconvenience to the resident and effort to progress the complaint. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident a further £50 in addition to the £100 offered in its final response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme we find:
1. Maladministration for the landlord’s handling of repairs following a roof leak.
2. Service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Send a written apology to the resident from a senior member of its staff, for the failings highlighted in the report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £1150, which includes:
  1. £600 offered by the landlord in its final response for the inconvenience to the resident of delays in completing repairs.
  2. £100 offered by the landlord in its final response for the inconvenience caused by its handling of her complaint.
  3. £400 for the distress to the resident of the delays completing repairs and the landlords lack of communication with the resident.
  4. An additional £50 for the inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
3. The landlord must provide us with evidence of the payments.
4. Check its records and consult with the resident regarding the amount of time she used the 2 dehumidifiers during the repairs process. The landlord must pay compensation in line with its policy for this. The landlord must provide us with evidence of the payments.
5. Instruct a surveyor to carry out a full inspection of the resident’s flat, paying attention to the areas affected by the water ingress. Following on from the inspection the landlord must:
  1. Write to the resident and this Service with the findings of the inspection.
  2. Agree a plan to carry out any necessary works. In its plan the landlord must detail all the required works and give a clear timing of when the works will start and end.
  3. The landlord must provide a copy of its plan to the resident and this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord must carry out a review of the complaint. The review must consider the failings identified in this investigation and identify any learning. The landlord must confirm to the resident and this Service how it aims to address this.