Peabody Trust (202421763)

Background

1. The lead resident made the complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman as a group complaint. This was on behalf of the residents of the same development, with 70 residents supporting the case to us. The complaint arose following a loss of water to the whole development between 11 and 14 December 2023.
2. The development has a total of 295 properties. This was a joint venture between the landlord and the developer. The landlord has confirmed that it is the freeholder of the whole site. This includes 69outright leasehold, 53 shared ownership and 42 affordable rent flats. Another landlord owns the remaining 131 properties under a head lease. There is a management company and an energy management company in place who are both party to the lease agreement of the resident. A managing agent is in place to deliver services to residents.

What the complaint is about

3. The landlord’s handling of reports of a loss of water supply to all properties.
4. We have also looked at how the landlord handled the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of a loss of water supply.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
7. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Loss of water supply

8. There was a loss of water to residents between 11 and 14 December 2023. The landlord responded appropriately in ensuring that contractors attended to reinstate the water to the development. There is little evidence that it kept in contact with residents about the scale of the loss and the length of time they could expect to be without water. There is only evidence of communication late on 13 December 2023. This was to inform residents of a planned loss of water to allow for final repair works. It was only at this point that it provided bottled water to residents.
9. There was a lack of clarity around responsibility for responding to the water loss, together with ongoing maintenance to the pumps.

Complaint handling

10. The landlord did not meet its published timescales in responding to the residents’ escalated complaint. There were further delays in it providing a reply to residents when they raised further concerns and challenged the offered compensation.

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 follow 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.

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.

11. There was a loss of water supply to the residents’ homes between 11 and 14 December 2023. The landlord received the first report of a loss of water supply at around 11pm on 11 December 2023. This was linked to a burst water pipe in the local area. The water supplier was attending to its repair. The landlord has said that the managing agent notified residents about the issue and that the water supplier was dealing with this. The water supply was restored to residents by 12pm on 12 December 2023. This was understandably an inconvenience to residents but was outside the control of the landlord or its managing agent.
12. A further loss of water supply occurred at 8pm on 12 December 2023 when the water pumps on the estate failed. The landlord’s records show that the developer instructed its own contractor to attend to investigate the loss of water. It attended on 13 December 2023. The landlord first said that it was the responsibility of the managing agent to maintain and repair the water pumps. It would follow that it was for the managing agent’s contractor to attend. When it did not do so, the evidence suggests that the developer stepped in to repair the water pumps. There was a lack of clarity around the responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the water pumps, with the managing agent saying they were not its responsibility. This led to an avoidable delay in dealing with the loss of water supply at the earliest stage possible.
13. The contractor reinstated the water by 4pm on 13 December 2023. There was a further loss of water supply around 2 hours later and the contractor came back. It had restored the water by 10pm and remained to check that the pumps were working until 11pm. The landlord initially told residents that there would be a further break in their water supply on 14 December 2023 while its contractor carried out further repairs. The contractor reattended on 14 December 2024 and confirmed that the water supply remained in place and that it needed no further repairs. There was no further loss of water supply following its reinstatement at 10pm on 13 December 2023.
14. The landlord’s repair records show that it raised an order on 13 December 2023 to provide residents with bottled water. The order was to deliver water to a total of 164 residents. It is unclear from the record when and if it delivered the water.
15. The loss of supply from 8 pm on 12 December 2023 to its reinstatement on 13 December 2023, initially by 4pm and then lost again around 6pm, was within the landlord’s remit to remedy. It is the freeholder for the development. It is part of the management company that appointed the managing agent. It handled the agreement with the managing agent and was responsible for ensuring that this covered the management and maintenance of the water pumps. A lack of clarity about levels of responsibility led to a delayed response to the loss of water. There was also a lack of clarity in its communication with residents about responsibility for the repair and the provision of bottled water. This was understandably a source of inconvenience and frustration for residents within the development.
16. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will respond to an emergency repair, such as the complete loss of water, within 4 hours and complete the repair within 24 hours. Its repairs policy says that the landlord has a general responsibility for repairs to communal areas where it is the freeholder. This may be varied where there are specific terms within a lease. There is a lack of clarity who arranged for the contractor to attend following the loss of water late on 12 December 2023. The contractor worked on behalf of the developer, rather than the landlord or the managing agent. The landlord set out in its response to residents that the managing agent had responsibility for the maintenance of the tank room and associated equipment, together with responsibility for the provision of bottled water. It said that it had “shared this information with them”. There was a lack of accountability at the time of the water loss which led to a delayed response and a lack of clarity for residents as to who was managing the situation.
17. The landlord has provided no evidence of its communication with residents about the loss of water supply following the reinstatement by the water supplier. It would have been appropriate for there to have been clear communication with residents over the 3 days to inform them of the cause of the water shortage and the action it was taking to reinstate the supply. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have arranged for a delivery of bottled water at the earliest opportunity following the loss of water supply. That it did not do so until late on 13 December 2023 was a failure by the landlord.
18. It is reasonable to expect that the landlord would have a clear procedure and communication plan in place for dealing with a major incident, in this case the loss of water to a total of 295 flats. There was also a lack of clear communication with residents and a lack of ownership by the parties involved. There is evidence that the developer referred residents to the landlord and there is no evidence of communication from the managing agent. This left residents with unclear information as to when the supply would be restored and at least one resident arranged to stay overnight in a hotel.
19. The contractor reported to the landlord that it had found debris affecting the valve to the water pump. It said that this could be linked to the works undertaken by the water supplier, but it also highlighted a lack of regular maintenance. The landlord told residents that this was the responsibility of the managing agent. It acted on the engineer’s report to put in place its own contractor to undertake forward maintenance of the water pumps and tanks. This was an appropriate response. However, residents could reasonably have expected the landlord to have ensured that regular maintenance was being carried out.
20. In its complaint response the landlord told residents that it had no service level agreement in place with the managing agent and accepted that this had led to a poor standard of service to residents. Further it acknowledged the confusion this had caused around responsibility. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it was not the freeholder. This was untrue. The landlord has confirmed to us that it is the freeholder for the whole development. There was a clear failure of ownership and communication throughout which amounts to a service failure by the landlord. We have made an order for the landlord to review its handling in this case to ensure that it now has appropriate arrangements in place and to use this as learning for future developments of this nature.
21. The landlord made an offer of £25 compensation to residents through its stage1 complaint response. It said that this was for the loss of water for 2 days which had also caused a loss of heating and hot water. This calculation is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. This policy says that it will compensate residents for the loss of utilities after the first 24 hours using the following figures:
    1. Loss of water supply (where it is the landlord’s responsibility) £5 per day.
    2. Total loss of heating £3 per day.
    3. Total loss of hot water up to a maximum of £5 per day.
22. At stage 2 of the complaints process the landlord increased this offer to £50. This included an added £25 for the further inconvenience to residents and the delays in its complaint handling. It said that this was payable to its “affected residents”.
23. It told the resident that its compensation offer was only payable to those who had shared ownership or affordable rent tenancies. This excluded the outright leaseholders alongside those who were tenants of the other landlord. It is reasonable to expect that alterative arrangements would have been in place for the residents of the other landlord within the development. However, for the outright leaseholders the landlord is the freeholder. They are responsible for ensuring that the managing agent provides a service to them. We have therefore made an order for compensation which includes these residents.
24. We have noted that the landlord amended its offered compensation in its correspondence with the resident dated 11 December 2024. Having made an offer as an outcome to its formal complaints process, we believe it is fair that the landlord honours this commitment. We have therefore based our order on the offer included in its stage 2 response.

25. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint procedure. The response timeline for each stage is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It says it will acknowledge a complaint at each stage within 5 working days. The landlord will then respond to a complaint within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If it is unable to respond to the complaint within this time it will agree with the resident an extension and let them know of the same.
26. When investigating a case, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; put things right and learn from outcomes.
27. The resident first raised a complaint with the landlord on 13 December 2023 while the water shortage remained ongoing. She asked for an urgent response given the nature of the issue about which she was complaining. The landlord provided a timely response. It made initial contact with the resident on receiving the complaint and provided a written response on 20 December 2023.
28. The resident requested escalation of the complaint on 9 January 2024. She initially asked the landlord to provide clarity on a few points. She said that if it was unable to do so she wanted her complaint escalating. The landlord acknowledged the request to escalate the complaint on 9 February 2024, 23 working days after receiving the resident’s contact. This was a failure to meet its published policy timescales.
29. It provided its stage 2 response on 22 March 2024. This was 30 working days after the landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint and 53 working days since her initial request. This was a significant failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint and the timeliness of its reply. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its response to the resident and increased the level of compensation offered. It included a further £25, broken down as £10 for time and trouble and £15 for its complaint handling delays.
30. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked the landlord to provide further clarification. She responded on 9 April 2024. The landlord provided a reply on 11 April 2024 that provided clarity as to the scope of its offered compensation. In this it said that the offered compensation related to those residents who had “a contractual relationship with it”. These it defined as its leaseholders, shared owners and tenants. It did not include those who had bought their homes directly from the developer of the site or those who rented from another landlord within the development.
31. The resident and in turn the residents association expressed its unhappiness with the scope of the landlord’s compensation offer. It said that the developer had redirected those who had bought from it to the landlord as the freeholder of the development. The landlord then undertook internal discussions around responsibility and liability. There is evidence that the landlord kept a level of contact with the residents association through these investigations, but a break in contact led to the resident escalating her complaint to us. It did not conclude its internal investigations until December 2024, when it wrote again to the resident. It is acknowledged that this was a complex situation in which the landlord took positive steps to find a resolution for the resident by continuing to investigate the issue after completing its final complaint response.
32. The resident chased the landlord for responses on 25 October 2024, 18 November 2024 and 4 December 2024. In the final communication the resident highlighted that the stage 2 outcome had been ongoing for a year. The landlord’s response in December 2024 set out the complex structure of the management of the estate and explained that it had taken steps to review its agreement with the managing agent. It said that the complaint had prompted it to take positive action in revising the responsibilities of the managing agent and for it to put other maintenance arrangements in place. It then provided a revised offer of compensation to its shared owners and affordable rent tenants. This was a restatement of its offer at stage 1 but with a clear group of residents who would qualify. It did not support the added amount offered at stage 2, which addressed in part the delays in its complaint handling. It then made a separate offer to the chair of the resident’s association for bringing the complaint.
33. There was a failure by the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint within its published timeframes. This was compounded by the further delay in it providing clarity to the resident about its offered compensation. These delays amounted to a service failure.

Learning

34. There were failures in the landlord’s understanding of its own liability within the terms of the lease and it its oversight of the managing agent. It needs to have clear definitions at the start of a scheme. These are to record responsibilities for each aspect of the service and to ensure clarity in managing and advising residents in the event of an emergency.
35. There should be clarity for residents as to what they can expect when an emergency of this nature occurs. The landlord may wish to consider the provision of guidance around what it will do in the circumstances of a water outage such as the provision of bottled water and when it will do so. It should as be clear with residents about when a claim may be raised under its buildings policy. It is unlikely that the policy would have been applicable in this case there was no actual damage to residents’ homes.
36. The landlord has taken positive steps in reviewing the arrangements in place for this development. It has extended its agreement with its own contractor to provide the continued servicing and maintenance of the water pumps.

Communication

37. The evidence provided does not include detail of the level of communication with residents through the time that they were without water. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord, through its managing agent to be providing regular updates to residents about the steps it was taking. Together with setting timelines for the resolution of the issue.