Peabody Trust (202347358)

Background

1. The property is a flat in a block. The resident said he reported damp and mould in the property in December 2022. The landlord attended in April 2023 and noted this was caused by a leak behind a wall. The landlord investigated this by completing a CCTV survey and visiting properties above. It identified the leak was from the communal stack pipe.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of his:
   1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acknowledged there was a significant delay in it resolving the leak and communication failures. It also identified it should have considered a temporary move for the resident while it completed making good works. The landlord apologised and offered considerable compensation that exceeded the requirements of its compensation policy and our compensation guidance.
5. There was a significant delay in the landlord’s handling of the stage 2 complaint. The content of the stage 1 response was not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord acknowledged failures, apologised and offered compensation that exceeded the amount set out in its compensation policy.

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.

6. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for repairs to communal areas, which includes the stack pipe. The landlord must address damp and mould in line with section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
7. The resident said he reported damp and mould in the property in December 2022. We have not seen evidence of this. However, the landlord has confirmed it visited in January 2023 regarding damp and mould. Therefore, it is reasonable that the resident made a prior report that prompted this visit.
8. The landlord resolved the leak on the stack pipe in February 2024. We recognise this was complex to resolve due to its location and the design of the building. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord treated this as a specialist repair. Its repairs policy says these are complex in nature and require a technical lead in diagnosing and managing through to completion. It commits to complete these within 60 days (2 months). The landlord repaired the leak in around 14 months, meaning there was a delay of around 12 months. This was significantly over the committed timescale set out in its policy.
9. The landlord took reasonable action to investigate the leak. However, it took too long to progress and escalate actions to achieve a resolution. The landlord used multiple contractors to investigate the leak but did not arrange a surveyor’s inspection until February 2024. This was more than a year after the resident reported the leak and should have been done sooner.
10. There were instances where the landlord did not attend pre-arranged appointments, or attended appointments without enough time to complete the required works and needed to reattend. These factors contributed to the overall delay in the landlord resolving the leak. The landlord did not consistently keep the resident updated on the progress of the repair. This resulted in him spending time and effort chasing for updates on occasions, which was frustrating for him.
11. The landlord completed making good works in the property in March and April 2024. It agreed to do the works room by room so the resident could still live in the property. As the leak had been ongoing for over a year, there was a large amount of damage. This meant the works to put this right were extensive. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider how it could minimise the inconvenience to the resident. However, it should also have considered if a temporary move was needed while it did the works. It did not do this and this resulted in disruption and inconvenience for the resident during the 2 month period.
12. The landlord acknowledged failures in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered compensation. The resident agrees the landlord has resolved the leak and completed the making good works, meaning it remedied the substantive issue. Therefore, the question before us is whether the landlord has provided sufficient remedy to recognise the impact of its failings and put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
13. To do this, we consider both the events which initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
14. The landlord did not act with sufficient urgency to resolve this issue. The length of time the leak was ongoing meant there was considerable damage to multiple rooms in the property, including damp and mould. The making good works were intrusive and the landlord failed to consider whether the resident needed to be temporarily moved while these were done. The prolonged leak and damage, including damp and mould, affected the family’s use and enjoyment of the property, and caused distress for an extended period.
15. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay between £451 and £650 for service failures that caused extensive disruption. This is where there had been a high impact and high effort to resolve, an extended time to complete actions, and failure to communicate or follow procedure. The landlord’s offer of £1,000 for time, trouble and inconvenience exceeded its policy commitment. This was reasonable and showed it had recognised the significant impact of its failures on the resident.
16. The landlord’s compensation policy at the time said in exceptional circumstances, its failure to deliver a service may impact a resident’s enjoyment of their whole property. In such cases, it would consider refunding a percentage of rent alongside any payments for distress and inconvenience. This could range from 5% to 20% of rent dependent upon the extent of the resident’s experience.
17. In this case, the landlord offered £920.46 as 15% of the weekly rent for the 10 months it took to trace the leak. The leak went on for an extended period and caused damp and mould throughout the property. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord offered compensation to acknowledge that the resident’s enjoyment of the whole property was affected.
18. The resident reported this issue in December 2022, meaning the period of delay in the landlord tracing and resolving the leak was 12 months, rather than 10. The amount offered is considerable and exceeds the recommended maximum amount for extensive disruption in the landlord’s compensation policy. Considering this and the overall package of redress offered, this amount is reasonable for the resident’s loss of use of enjoyment of the property for the 12 month period of delay.
19. The landlord also offered £613.64 as 50% of the weekly rent for 2 months while it carried out making good works. This exceeded its policy commitment that said it would pay up to 20% of the rent. Considering the extent of the disruption, this was reasonable and showed it had properly considered the impact on the resident.
20. The landlord’s compensation policy says where a resident needs to use dehumidifiers, it will pay £2 per day per dehumidifier. The landlord complied with this and offered £4 per day for the use of 2 dehumidifiers. The landlord’s policy said it would pay this for up to 60 days. It exceeded that in this case and offered to pay this for the entire period of 141 days the resident used dehumidifiers. This showed it was taking the matter seriously and wanted to put things right for the resident.
21. The landlord’s total offer of £3,098.10 compensation was considerable. Our compensation guidance recommends payments of £1,000 or over for serious failings that had a severe long-term impact. The landlord’s offer is significantly over £1,000. This shows it had fully recognised the impact of its failures and was committed to putting things right for the resident. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident. He has confirmed the landlord has paid him the compensation and so we have not made any recommendations in respect of this.

22. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord’s complaints policy said it would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
23. The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 5 working days, in line with the committed timescale set out in its policy. The Code at the time said stage 1 responses should include the details of any remedy offered to put things right and details of any outstanding actions. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it needed to complete repairs to resolve this matter. However, it did not give any details about what these were or a timescale in which it would do these. This left the resident not knowing how or when the landlord would resolve this matter for him, which was disappointing.
24. The landlord sent the stage 2 response in 58 working days, significantly over the committed timescale set out in its policy. The landlord’s policy said if it needed more time, it would tell the resident and give a clear timeframe for when it would respond. There is no evidence the landlord did this.
25. The resident spent time and effort chasing the stage 2 response on at least 3 occasions in March and April 2024. The landlord then formally acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 9 April 2024 and confirmed it would respond within 20 working days, which it subsequently did. The content of the landlord’s stage 2 response was reasonable and addressed all of the resident’s concerns.
26. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of the complaint, apologised and offered compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy at the time said it would pay between £201 and £300 for severe failures in its complaint handling. This included extensive failures to follow its policy or investigate a complaint, causing a significant impact on the resident.
27. There was a significant delay in the landlord responding to the stage 2 complaint. This resulted in the resident spending time and effort chasing this up on multiple occasions. Considering this, it was reasonable that the landlord offered compensation for severe failures.
28. The landlord offered £500 compensation. This exceeded the recommended amount for severe failure. This was generous and showed the landlord wanted to put things right. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident. He has confirmed the landlord has paid him the compensation and so we have not made any recommendations in respect of this.

Learning

29. For complex leaks the landlord should progress actions to investigate this promptly. If initial investigations are unsuccessful in identifying the cause, it should escalate actions to investigate and resolve this. It should consider if a more specialist assessment is required at the earliest opportunity.
30. The landlord should consider if a temporary move is required when intrusive works are needed in a property.
31. As part of its complaints process, the landlord should acknowledge any failures and take reasonable steps to put things right, in line with its compensation policy, as it did in this case. The landlord should consider if compensation beyond the amounts set out in its policy is required to fully put things right for a resident, as it did in this case.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. There were some missing records in this case but this did not impact our ability to investigate. The landlord should ensure it keeps detailed records of all contacts and actions. It should provide these to us for our investigations.

Communication

33. If a complaint response is delayed, the landlord should tell the resident and confirm a date by which it expects to respond.
34. The landlord should send proactive updates to residents about the progress of repairs. It should not rely on resident’s chasing to send updates.
35. In complaint responses, the landlord should include details of any remedy offered to put things right and details of any outstanding actions. This should include specifics about what the actions are and a timescale for these to be completed.