Peabody Trust (202346846)

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident says his family experienced ill health due to the landlord’s handling of his complaint. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide the cause and duration of any illness. We did not investigate this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to deal with non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days. The resident informed the landlord on 21 September 2023 of the bathroom floor issue and it visited the property to assess the issue on 3 October 2023. It made an appointment for 16 October 2023 for a contractor to repair the bathroom floor. This was within the landlord’s repairs policy timeframe. However, the landlord’s repairs log does not acknowledge these appointments. This indicated gaps in the landlord’s record keeping practices.
8. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 November 2023 that the contractor did not attend the appointment. He said the contractor attended a few days later with no prior warning. It told the resident it could not complete the work that day and would return, which it did not. The landlord did not have any updated repair records which showed missed and rearranged appointments. Nor was it aware an appointment had been made until the resident informed it. This further shows gaps in the landlord’s record keeping.
9. The resident and landlord made several unsuccessful attempts between October and December 2023 to rearrange the appointment with the contractor. This meant the repair fell out of the landlord’s repairs policy timeframe. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this failing and uphold the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The landlord acknowledged the difficulty in contacting the contractor and the inconvenience the resident had faced with the bathroom floor.
10. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and lack of movement in arranging the bathroom floor repair. He escalated his complaint to stage 2 in November 2023. The resident explained his bathroom was a mess and a trip hazard, which resulted in his pregnant partner and child not being able to live safely at the property. Whilst he mentioned this to the landlord, there is no evidence he provided the landlord with receipts of hotels or meals. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not offer to reimburse this without evidence. Therefore, the landlord acted in line with its compensation policy.
11. In December 2023 and February 2024, the main contractor informed the landlord they could not complete the repair as the resident wished to use nonstandard flooring which he had purchased. There is no evidence the main contractor informed the landlord of this issue at the time of the first appointment. The first notification of a bathroom floor repair within the landlord’s repair log is 6 February 2024, four months after the first appointment. This further shows gaps in the landlord’s record keeping practices.
12. In February 2024, the landlord told the resident that the bathroom flooring could only be replaced with like‑for‑like materials. This was consistent with its repairs policy, which says it is responsible for replacing bathroom floors with like‑for‑like safety flooring. The landlord offered to replace the floor with its own materials, or the resident could choose to use his own flooring, but it would not be responsible for any future repairs to that flooring. These options were reasonable and showed the landlord’s attempts to put things right while managing the resident’s expectations.
13. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £300 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its delay to complete the bathroom repair. It acknowledged the repair had taken longer than its usual expected timeframe and the communication with the contractor had been below standard. The compensation offered was within its compensation policy.
14. In April 2024 the landlord further provided the resident a refund of £170.86 flooring he had purchased as a gesture of goodwill. This was in line with its compensation policy, where it would provide an offer of good will to help resolve a complaint. This showed the landlord attempted to put the resident back in to the position he was in before the service failure.
15. Our remedies guidance suggests an award where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact. The landlord’s offer of £300 falls within this category and appropriately recognised the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord’s offer was proportionate to the identified failings and it acknowledges the excessive time the resident lived with an incomplete repair.

16. The Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) March 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord’s complaints policy complied with the timeframes in the Code.
17. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint made on 9 November 2023 within 5 days. However, it sent its stage 1 response on 17 November, which is within its 10-day timeframe. The landlord response shows it accepted its service had fallen short of its own policies and standards and offered redress to put things right.
18. The resident escalated his complaint on 28 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged this request on 4 December 2023, which was within its complaint policy timeframe.
19. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 February 2024, 52 working days after the complaint was escalated. The landlord did not notify the resident of the delay or request an extension. This was not consistent with the Code.
20. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delay and upheld the resident’s complaint. It provided options to resolve the bathroom floor issue and offered £200 for its poor complaint handling. This was consistent with its compensation policy. The landlord recognised that its complaint handling delay caused further delays to complete the repair and apologised. The landlord’s offer was consistent with our remedies guidance for cases where failures have adversely affected a resident. Therefore, we find that the landlord offered reasonable redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The records from the time of the complaint show gaps in how the landlord recorded and monitored repair appointments. The landlord did not have accurate or accessible records of the appointments made, missed, or rearranged, and it relied on the resident to report the status of the repair. This limited the landlord’s ability to track progress and understand what action contractors had taken. It may wish to refer to the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management and our centre for learning, available via our website.

Communication

22. The evidence shows that communication about repair appointments was unclear during the period of the complaint. The landlord relied on the contractor to arrange and update the resident about appointments, and it did not confirm appointment times directly with the resident. The landlord also waited for the resident to report whether the work had been completed, rather than seeking feedback itself. It may wish to refer to the spotlight report on repairs and maintenance and our centre for learning, available via our website.