The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Peabody Trust (202342924)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342924

Peabody Trust

31 July 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. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. He has lived in the 1 bed lower ground floor flat since 1998. Although no vulnerabilities are recorded for the resident, he has informed the landlord that his son who stays at the property on a weekend is asthmatic, and his health has been affected by the living conditions.
  2. On 15 September 2023, the resident reported damp and mould and damage to his flooring. The cause was reported to be a flood from the neighbour’s garden. A contractor attended on 29 September 2023, and a surveyor’s assessment was suggested – this took place on 4 October 2023, and recommendations for internal and external work were submitted to the landlord. Due to the lack of updates or progress, the resident submitted a complaint on 18 October 2023. The landlord told the resident it had logged his contact through the service recovery process as it believed it could be resolved quickly.
  3. The resident chased the landlord into December 2023 for updates and a start date. A further inspection on 1 December 2023 confirmed the external work should be completed before the internal work. The resident told the landlord the cold weather conditions were making matters worse and his health was affected. He did not receive an update and no repairs were carried out.
  4. The resident submitted another complaint on 21 December 2023 due to lack of progress. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 January 2024, advising it would respond within 10 working days. On 1 February 2024, the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated as after 2 inspections, no repairs had been done and no complaint response had been received.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 March 2024. It apologised that the problem had not been resolved. It said several contractors had been involved to assess whether there was a drainage or roof issue before confirming it was a drainage issue. The landlord outlined the work to be done to rectify the issues and confirmed that, on completion of the work, it would review the repair and complaint journey and consider if compensation was applicable.
  6. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 8 and 11 March 2024. He highlighted poor communication, late responses, and a lack of progress. He said he felt “trapped” and “unheard,” his health had been affected and his belongings damaged. He asked for compensation for the “nightmare,” lack of progress, accountability, and acknowledgement of the living conditions.
  7. The resident did not receive a response from the landlord and contacted this Service for assistance. We contacted the landlord on 17 April 2024 and asked it to respond by 24 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation and told the resident it would respond within 20 working days. While the stage 2 was ongoing, the landlord sent a further stage 1 response on 2 May 2024. It confirmed the external work had been completed as of April 2024 but said the internal work had been put on hold due to the involvement of a solicitor. It then asked the resident if a disrepair claim had been submitted. It apologised for the time, effort and inconvenience and offered £550 compensation.
  8. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 21 May 2024. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience, and agreed the repairs could have been completed sooner. It told the resident to claim through his own insurance for the damaged belongings or contact the landlord’s insurance team if he believed it was liable. The landlord provided the timeline of events and acknowledged the number of calls made by the resident chasing updates. It confirmed the external work would be done on 31 May 2024, after which the internal work would proceed. The landlord highlighted service failures with customer service, complaint management and delays in repairs. It offered £950 in acknowledgement of these and said that if there were any further service failures, it would review the compensation and address any issues raised.

Post completion of the complaint process

  1. Ten months since the first report of the problem, and in contact dated 12 July 2024, the resident has confirmed the issues are still ongoing and the repairs are still outstanding. He said he was still waiting to hear how the damp and mould would be addressed and that following an inspection by a damp specialist on 8 July 2024, it is possible he will need to be moved to temporary accommodation to allow the work to be completed.
  2. The landlord has confirmed the work that has been recommended following the inspection on 8 July 2024, but as of 23 July 2024, this work is still waiting for approval, therefore has not been scheduled. The landlord has not referred to the resident moving out to allow the work. The landlord has confirmed no additional compensation has been offered to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has stated the issue of damp and mould has been ongoing for 10 years. While this is noted, paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (at the time the complaint was made) stated that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. As a result, this report will only assess events that occurred in the 6 months prior to the complaint being made in October 2023.
  2. The resident has referred to the impact the issues have had on his own health and that of his son. 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, he should obtain legal advice as this is not a process the Ombudsman can be involved in. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused. 
  3. The resident has asked for compensation for the belongings affected by the damp and mould. This is better suited to an insurance claim or court and will not form part of this investigation. Any offer of compensation will be assessed in line with our Guidance on Remedies (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The resident should contact Citizens Advice for further information should he wish to pursue this aspect of the complaint further.

Damp and mould

  1. Following a report of damp and mould in September 2023, the landlord sent a contractor within a reasonable timeframe to look at the property. Due to the nature of the problem, it was suggested that a surveyor inspected the property to fully assess the situation – this was reasonable as it demonstrated an expert opinion was required. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord responded appropriately.
  2. The inspection was arranged quickly, and the surveyor confirmed that the findings and recommendations would be given to the landlord. The surveyor confirmed issues with sitting water on the roof and problems with the gutters and gullies in the neighbouring property. These were affecting the rendering and brickwork of the resident’s property and each issue contributed to the damp and mould.
  3. Despite the quick response to the initial report and the surveyor inspection, it is evident that works did not progress. This led to the resident chasing the landlord several times before he submitted a complaint. The landlord said it would contact the contractor and provide start dates, but this did not happen, and while further inspections were conducted, no repairs were done. The Ombudsman finds the lack of progress and communication with the resident unreasonable. As the landlord has ultimate responsibility for the completion of all repairs, it should have access to repair information so it has a full knowledge of the repairs and can provide timely updates to the resident.
  4. With no justification as to why the surveyor’s recommendations were not progressed, the Ombudsman finds the lack of progress unreasonable. It was evident from the resident’s communication that the situation was causing him distress and concern, particularly regarding the health of his son. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not show any urgency in progressing the repairs and showed a lack of empathy and understanding in what was a potentially vulnerable situation for the resident. There is no evidence of the landlord completing an assessment to consider the specific situation of the household and highlight the need for urgent attention – this, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was unreasonable.
  5. By the time the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 March 2024, no repairs had been done. Six months had passed since the issue was reported and although 3 inspections had been completed, no repairs had been carried out to resolve the continuing damp and mould. The landlord said several contractors had been involved to assess the root cause. While this may have been the case, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the diagnosis took too long. It prolonged the start of the work and added to the distress of the resident.
  6. The landlord confirmed in March 2024 that there was a drainage issue and new orders had been raised to resolve this. However, from the evidence provided, the repairs were the same as those recommended after the initial assessment. It is therefore unclear why the landlord (or its contractor) took so long to commence the necessary work. While the repairs were confirmed, the landlord did not indicate when they would start. It also said the complaint would stay open until the repairs were completed, but there was no commitment from the landlord to monitor the repairs – the Ombudsman finds this unreasonable. The lack of information is likely to have caused the resident more frustration and been a contributing factor to the escalation of the complaint as he was still unclear as to when the work would be done.
  7. On 7 March 2024, the landlord told the resident the drainage company hoped to start the work on 11 March 2024, but said it would confirm this. While there is no evidence this was confirmed, on 8 March 2024, the resident told the landlord the drainage company had attended that day but had not been able to access the neighbouring property as it had not provided the neighbour’s contact details. The landlord disputed this and confirmed the drainage company was aware the work was a priority and to be completed as soon as possible. The work was rescheduled for 16 March 2024. The resident escalated the complaint due to the lack of progress. He asked for compensation for the unprofessionalism, lack of accountability and acknowledgement of the situation, and the impact on him caused by the delays.
  8. There appears to have been a communication issue in terms of when the drainage company was to attend. While it stated the work has been rescheduled for 23 March 2024, the resident disputed this stating he had stayed in all day on 14 and 16 March 2023 as previously agreed. The Ombudsman is unable to comment further on this miscommunication due to the lack of evidence provided. The drainage company attended on 23 March 2024. They confirmed that they had been asked to address the drainage issue around the kitchen and bedroom but had not been asked to address the brickwork. They advised the external work needed doing or the damp would persist. The resident noted his frustration with this further visit and asked when the work would be done. The drainage company confirmed the drainage work was completed on 23 March 2024.
  9. On 2 May 2024, the landlord told the resident the remaining work had been put on hold due to the presence of a solicitor (as told by the contractor). It then asked him to confirm if he had made a disrepair claim as a different process had to be followed. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s approach to this situation unreasonable. While a different process is followed, it appears the landlord did not know for certain if a claim had been made. When the landlord asked the contractor when they were told about the solicitor, they confirmed that they had told the landlord’s complaint team about this on 22 March 2024.
  10. There is no evidence of any checks being made by the landlord with its legal team or the resident to verify this information at that time. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable. It raises concern with the landlord’s internal communication, record keeping and repair and complaint management. The lack of action from the landlord prolonged the repairs further and is likely to have increased the resident’s frustration. On 6 May 2024, the landlord told the contractor to schedule the repairs as normal as a claim had not been made – as confirmed by the resident.
  11. After liaising with the resident, the landlord told the contactor there was still outstanding work that needed completing externally. While the job ticket had been marked as completed, it was evident that work was still outstanding. This raises concern with the contractor’s record keeping. A recommendation has been made to reflect this concern.
  12. In its final complaint response dated 21 May 2024, the landlord told the resident the rendering work had been arranged for 31 May 2024, and on completion of the work, the internal work would be scheduled. While there was reference to the damaged flooring, it was unclear if the landlord had agreed to replace this for the resident. The Ombudsman asked the landlord if it had replaced, or was intending to replace, the flooring in the bedroom but it has not committed to this. Its response confirmed the resident would need remove the cupboard to provide access.
  13. The resident informed this Service that a contractor attended on 31 May 2024 to investigate the external and internal work required. He said it was highlighted that work to the guttering had not been completed and there were holes in the walls where mice had been gaining access to the property. Furthermore, 10 months after the initial report, a further investigation by a damp specialist was completed on 8 July 2024. According to the resident, severe damp and mould was identified in the whole property. He said it is possible he will need to move to alternative accommodation to allow the work to be done. The landlord has confirmed the work that was identified following the inspection, but it has yet to gain approval for the work. Consequently, the work has not been scheduled and the problems continue for the resident – the Ombudsman finds this unreasonable given it had already identified failings in its prior handling of damp and mould reports.
  14. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould. Throughout the investigation, there is evidence of poor internal and external communication. This delayed matters unnecessarily and caused increasing frustration for the resident who was left continuously chasing updates. It is evident that several inspections were completed, and while it is understood that second opinions are often required, this process took too long and contributed to the significant delays in repairs being attempted.
  15. There are concerns with the landlord’s accountability and recognition of the urgency of the work in its management and ability to progress the repairs accordingly. There was a lack of empathy and understanding of the impact the situation was having on the resident and a lack of assessment from the landlord regarding the vulnerability of the household. In addition, there are concerns with the contractors’ record keeping, communication and completion of repair tickets when there was still work outstanding.
  16. Across the full complaint process, the landlord offered the resident £700 for the delays in repairs and £400 for the time and trouble. In terms of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this is in the range of what we would expect to see for a finding of severe maladministration which has had a significant impact on a resident. However, it has been confirmed that the repairs are still outstanding with no commitment as to when they will be scheduled. Due to the lack of progress and continuing impact on the resident, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to put things right or learn lessons from the outcome of the complaint and therefore a finding of maladministration is appropriate.

Associated complaint

  1. When the resident first submitted a complaint on 18 October 2023, the landlord acknowledged receipt within a reasonable timescale of 2 working days. It confirmed it was logging it through its service recovery process however if the resident wished for it to be managed as a formal complaint, he should let his contact in the service recovery team know. There is no evidence to suggest this was requested and so the landlord proceeded through the route advised. The Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord complied with its complaint policy.
  2. Due to the lack of progress, the resident raised a formal complaint on 21 December 2023. The landlord failed to comply with its policy in terms of both the acknowledgement, and the response, which took 41 working days to provide (against a target 10 working days). There was further failure as the landlord did not communicate the delay to the resident. This is likely to have caused further frustration for the resident who invested unnecessary time and effort in chasing the landlord for an update. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable and raises concern with the landlord’s complaint management and communication with the resident.
  3. The landlord did not offer any apology or explanation for its delayed response or lack of communication regarding this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s lack of acknowledgement of these failures was unreasonable and did not demonstrate any empathy or understanding as to how the issues were affecting the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the response itself lacked detail. For example, it advised contractors had to determine if there was a roofing or drainage issue, but little explanation was given as to why it had taken so long for this to be confirmed. The landlord provided references to the work required but did not inform the resident of any appointment dates – this is likely to have contributed to the resident’s frustration, and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, does not show any urgency or commitment to progressing and monitoring the repairs through to completion.
  4. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 8 and 11 March 2024. While the Ombudsman has seen evidence of these requests and internal records from the landlord which confirmed these, the resident did not receive an acknowledgement or timely response. The Ombudsman finds it unreasonable that the resident had to contact this Service to ask for assistance in having the complaint progressed. This is a concern in terms of the landlord’s management of complaints, escalation requests and compliance against its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  5. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the escalation on 22 April 2024, informing the resident it would respond within 20 working days. It is noted that while the review of the complaint was ongoing, the landlord sent a further stage 1 response to the resident. With no evidence of a further complaint being made, this is a potential record keeping concern and indicates a confused complaint management process. The Ombudsman is unclear why this response was sent, and it is likely to have contributed to the resident’s further confusion around the complaint and at what stage it was at.
  6. The landlord’s final complaint response dated 21 May 2024 was in line with the 20 working day policy timescale. However, this was 2 months after it was originally requested by the resident. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints procedure meant it missed an opportunity to address his concerns sooner and left him waiting for a resolution. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. It also meant that there was a delay in the resident’s ability to bring his complaint to this Service for investigation. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable and supports the concern regarding the landlord’s complaint management and record keeping.
  7. The landlord did apologise that it had not done the repairs. It stated an appointment date for outstanding external repairs while confirming the internal repairs would follow. It is noted however that the landlord did not demonstrate a commitment to monitoring the repairs through to completion – consequently, the repairs are still ongoing and additional inspections have since been completed. This shows the landlord has not demonstrated any learning from the previous issues around communication, and ongoing delays which were raised by the resident.
  8. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has not recognised the continued impact the situation has had on the resident. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable. The landlord did use the complaint process to identify several service failures with customer service, complaint management and repair delays and set out several areas of improvement that had already been implemented. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to take as it demonstrated to the resident that it had addressed some of the issues highlighted.
  9. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. There is evidence of poor record keeping, communication and non-compliance with its own policy and the Code. The complaint responses were inconsistent and at times lacked detail which led to further confusion with the process. The landlord failed to respond to 2 escalation requests, and it took the involvement of this Service for the complaint to be progressed.
  10. Across the complaint responses, the landlord offered £400 for poor complaint handling. This is in the acceptable range of compensation we would expect for a finding of maladministration where a failure has had an adverse effect on the resident. It is noted that if it were not for the landlord identifying the service failures and improvements that were needed, and the offer of compensation, the Ombudsman would have made a finding of maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress 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 failures identified in the report.
    2. Pay the resident £1,100 compensation already offered to the resident in the responses dated 2 and 21 May 2024.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should write to the resident and this Service to:
    1. confirm the works it has approved following the recent inspection and provide a schedule of when the outstanding external and internal works will be completed;
    2. clearly communicate the appointment dates to the resident to ensure no further delays are experienced;
    3. advise whether it is satisfied that the works can be completed with the resident living in the property or not (if not, it should explain how it will arrange a decant);
    4. 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 May 2024 final complaint response up to the proposed end date of the remedial works.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 54g of the Scheme, within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should complete a full case review. While it should primarily focus on the handling of the damp and mould within the property, it should also include the complaint management. The review should identify any learning highlighted and 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.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £400 as agreed in the complaint response letter. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the handling of the associated complaint is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
  2. The landlord has not made it clear if it intends to replace the damaged flooring in the bedroom. The landlord should consider replacing this as a gesture of goodwill and in acknowledgement of the time taken to complete the repairs.
  3. The landlord should consider reviewing its performance for contractor performance. The contractor should ensure all repairs on a ticket are completed in full prior to signing off the repair as completed. Where possible, this could include a signature of the resident.
  4. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should contact this Service confirming its intentions regarding the recommendations made.