Peabody Trust (202400765)

Background

1. The resident lives with his wife and child. The landlord said it had no recorded vulnerabilities for him. However, the resident informed it during the complaint process that they all have asthma. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response to damp and mould reports as works remained outstanding prior to, and during, the complaint period. 

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports.
5. The landlord also provided reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling. 

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord failed to provide adequate communication or oversight to ensure completion of required damp and mould works. It did not show consideration of the household vulnerabilities. However, it took steps to put things right and offered sufficient redress for its failings.
   2. The landlord did not meet any of the timeframes set out in its complaint policy but awarded sufficient redress for its failings.

Putting things right

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’ve not investigated

7. We understand that the resident is of the view that the landlord should have completed chimney repairs alongside the roof and render works that were apparently done by the end of September 2024. We have not seen a copy of any inspection report done following the stage 2 complaint. The landlord’s decision on what works to progress after the survey, including the chimney, was made after the end of the complaints process. We have therefore not investigated that decision. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision making in response to the inspection report and its management of chimney repairs, they would need to raise a new complaint with the landlord.

What we have investigated

8. The landlord’s repair policy says it should complete non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days and any complex works within 60 calendar days
9. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will consider the effects damp and mould have on residents and prioritise work to tackle it.
10. After the resident first reported the damp and mould on 25 July 2023, the landlord cleaned out guttering and repaired tiles and cracks to the roof on 26 August 2023. Although the actions taken were reasonable, it narrowly failed to carry out the repair within the timeframe set out in its repair policy.
11. The resident next reported damp on 9 October 2023. The landlord attended on 26 October 2023 and identified “high readings of damp throughout the kitchen and bathroom”. The notes said repairs were required to tiling and guttering and cracked rendering and the chimney needed re-pointing. Landlord records show that it raised works orders but incorrectly cancelled them. This demonstrates a failure to manage the repairs effectively.
12. The landlord carried out another inspection in November 2023, the date of which is unclear. It did not raise any further works orders until 4 December 2023. The landlord’s delay in raising the repairs was unreasonable, especially given the potential additional damage that could be caused inside the property during the winter months and that it had identified high damp readings.
13. During this period, landlord had to investigate whether it had added an extension to the building as it suspected this could be part of the cause of damp. This indicated poor record keeping by the landlord as it should be fully aware of whether it had built, or given permission for, the extension.
14. The landlord’s stage 2 response in July 2024 acknowledged that it had not commenced the required works in the 8 months since it raised them. This meant that it had taken no action to carry out required repair since the resident’s renewed report in October 2023. Given the resident had chased these repairs directly and used the landlord’s complaint process, these delays were excessive, unnecessary and significantly outside of the repair policy timeframe of 60 days for complex works. These delays likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, especially given their stated concerns around medical vulnerabilities.
15. The resident made the landlord aware of vulnerability and related medical issues at least as early as October 2023. Despite having this information and the resident raising these concerns throughout the delay period, there is no evidence of the landlord considering the risk to the household or how it could mitigate any potential risk. This was unreasonable given the landlord’s knowledge of the resident’s vulnerabilities and was not in line with its damp and mould policy.
16. As part of the resolution proposed by the landlord, it offered to inspect the property and provide a schedule of works to treat the cause of the damp. The resident said that it carried out roofing and rendering works in September 2024. This was reasonable given that the landlord previously identified these works as a potential solution during an inspection. The landlord completed these works within 60 days of the stage 2 response.. This indicates that it completed the proposed surveyor inspection promptly after the stage 2 response and put things right in the way it proposed.
17. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord offered £2,487.68 compensation related to the delays in completing the required works. This landlord broke this down as £1,000 for distress and inconvenience and £1,487.68 as a 10% rent reduction for the period between August 2023 and September 2024. Given the extensive failings and delays, this offer was proportionate and in line with both the landlord’s compensation policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for circumstances where there were significant failings that had a severe detrimental impact on the resident.
18. Considering the failings identified in this report and the landlord’s actions to put things right, the Ombudsman finds that it offered reasonable redress. This may have been a finding of maladministration had the landlord not taken steps to acknowledge and provide redress for its failings. The finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould reports, and the impact on the resident, was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were considerable failings by the landlord which it acknowledged and offered compensation for in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

19. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code. The policy adds that the landlord can extend the time to provide a response but it should make the resident aware of it and the extension should be no longer than 10 working days.
20. At both stages of the complaint, the landlord failed to provide an acknowledgement or a response in line with its complaint policy. There is no evidence of an acknowledgement at stage 1, and it provided a response over 2 months after the complaint. It took 6 weeks for the landlord to acknowledge the stage 2 escalation, and its response took another 4 weeks. These delays were unreasonable and only added to the time and trouble experienced by the resident.
21. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the significant delays and offered compensation of £400 for the time and trouble experienced by the resident in dealing with the complaint. This offer was in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where landlords failings had an adverse impact on the resident. The level of compensation was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Learning

Damp and mould

22. The landlord should have systems and procedures in place to act on the findings of damp and mould reports quickly, putting in place a schedule of works where necessary to limit the ongoing impact on the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord should have systems and procedures in place to ensure it records any vulnerabilities when a resident makes it aware of them and they can be considered when required.

Communication

24. The landlord should have systems and procedures in place to ensure adequate management and communication throughout the complaint process. Any delays that mean responses will not be provided on time should be communicated to the resident.