Peabody Trust (202420302)

Background

1. At the time of the events complained about the resident lived in a flat owned by the landlord. The resident complained that she was without heating and hot water for 52 days during winter. She is unhappy about the length of time taken to resolve the issue, which she said exacerbated her arthritis and affected her mental health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handing of:
   1. Response to reports that the resident had no heating and hot water
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports that the resident had no heating and hot water.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Reasons

What we have not investigated

5. The resident told us that she would like compensation for the physical and mental impact the issue has caused her. However, it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. Therefore, we’ve not investigated this further. We can however decide if a landlord should pay compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused.

What we have investigated

The resident’s reports of no heating and hot water

6. On 3 October 2023, the resident reported that she had a damp wall and that the boiler was leaking, which meant that she had no heating or hot water. The landlord is responsible for providing heating and hot water to its residents as per the repairs policy.
7. The following day the resident called to chase up on the appointment. And on 5 October 2023 the landlord undertook a boiler survey, and confirmed the boiler needed replacing due to multiple leaks, but it needed to do further works before replacing the boiler. The initial attendance was outside of its emergency repair timescales as per its policy.
8. From the repair reports the landlord stated a dehumidifier was needed to dry out the walls. The resident received this on 19 October 2023, alongside two fan heaters. This delayed the subsequent repairs as there is no evidence to explain why the resident received these 2 weeks after the engineers survey. The landlord should have ensured that the resident received this sooner due to the severity of the issue and the fact that it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
9. On 9 November 2023, the landlord repaired the pipework, installed insulation on the pipes and made good the area around it. On 22 November 2023, a 3-step mould wash was completed and the floorboards replaced. And lastly, on 24 November 2023 a new boiler was installed, restoring the heating and hot water. Overall, the resident was without heating and hot water for 52 days, which is unreasonable considering her vulnerabilities. And during this time, the contractors missed two appointments with no reason provided. The landlord did not take timely action to remove the damp and mould or to mitigate the impact of the lack of heating and hot water. This was a failing by the landlord
10. The resident raised a complaint on 20 February 2024. She was unhappy with how long it took to resolve the issue and the distress and inconvenience it caused her and the effect it had on her health.
11. The landlord agreed in its stage 1 response there were failings. It apologised for this and the service that she received. It also confirmed that it cannot pay compensation for any impact on her health conditions and asked the resident to contact their insurance team, which was reasonable and in line with its compensation policies. The landlord offered compensation, of which £400 was for time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the delays in the repairs. This was not reasonable as the compensation does not fairly reflect the impact it had on a vulnerable resident.
12. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 August 2024, it acknowledged it took 52 days to repair the boiler, which was longer than it should have taken, considering the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord also explained that the fan heaters provided were inadequate, but it was the best it could offer at the time.
13. In summary, the failings identified have had a significant impact on the resident. She was a vulnerable resident with health conditions which the landlord was aware of. Understandably, there were several other works that needed to be completed before the boiler was replaced. The repair policy states that programmed repairs are to be completed in an average of 33 days and within 60 days as a maximum. But these works should have been assessed for prioritising in line with its repair policy where it states: “we may consider carrying out some repairs as a higher priority where the resident or someone in their household is known to us as vulnerable or needing assistance.” There is no evidence it did this.
14. The repairs were not caried out in line with its repair policy and the landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response. The landlord should have taken into consideration her vulnerability and mitigated the impact by expediting the repair work or providing additional support.
15. In addition, the landlord did not inform the resident of the delays or when the boiler replacement will take place. It was clear from its records the heating and hot water could not be restored promptly; therefore, the landlord should have assessed if it needed to provide further support to the resident during this period without the use of an essential service. The landlord could have provided access to alternative bathing/showering facilities or agreeing to refund the resident the cost of using these elsewhere, but it failed to consider any additional support, which was not reasonable.
16. It may have also been worth considering if alternative accommodation was necessary until the repairs were complete in line with its alternative accommodation policy, but there is no evidence to suggest it considered this, which was also not reasonable.
17. The resident also stated that she could not bathe as there was no hot water and had to ask her neighbour to have a bath, which caused her embarrassment. The fan heaters did not provide adequate heating during wintertime and the landlord acknowledged that the fan heaters were inadequate. As the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord should have assessed prioritising the repairs, but this did not happen. Also, the resident was unhappy that a call handler allegedly told her to boil a kettle for her daily needs. The landlord apologised for this but as we don’t have any evidence of what was said, we are unable to comment on this aspect.
18. The landlord increased its offer to £600 for the repair issues, which was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation, as it did not fully recognise the distress, inconvenience and impact caused to the resident. It also omitted compensation for the missed appointments, and additional cost of electricity, and reduced the compensation for the number of days she was without heating and hot water from its stage 1 response. It did not provide an explanation for this change, and its calculation was not consistent with its compensation policy says it will offer for issues such as a total loss of heating and hot water.
19. Additionally, the landlord’s compensation policy says its compensation payments will reflect: “…whether the situation should have been handled differently in light of the vulnerability, for example, whether a repair should have been dealt with outside of normal target response times or if we failed to adapt our communication appropriately.” We have not seen evidence that its offer of compensation reflected this approach.
20. Therefore, there was maladministration from the landlord in its handling of the response to reports of no heating and hot water. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £816 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience and the impact caused to the resident for being without an essential service for a prolonged period, and for no additional support provided to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The circumstances for maladministration apply and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.

Complaint handling

21. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s complaints policy says that a stage 1 response will be issued within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response will be issued within 10 working days.
22. Initially, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint after 6 working days, but the stage 1 response was significantly delayed (sent after 55 working days), which was 45 working days late. It acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on the same day it was escalated, but again the stage two response was significantly late (sent after 76 working days), which was 56 working days late. This was outside the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy and the guidelines in our Code.
23. The landlord acknowledged that there was a service failure as the resident did not receive timely responses, or adequate updates or feedback and subsequently offered £250 for its complaint handling failure and apologised. This is reasonable, and in line with the Code, so we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

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