Peabody Trust (202429291)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat within a block.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould, and associated requests for replacement windows.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould, and associated requests for replacement windows.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould, and associated requests for replacement windows

6. The landlord did not establish whether there were structural defects or issues arising from a common area, which may have affected the resident’s property. It also mismanaged her expectations as it failed to provide updates about planned investment regarding the windows, despite committing to do so.

 Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not follow its own complaints policy which caused a protracted complaint journey for the resident.

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.

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.

8. The resident’s lease states she is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the internal area of the property. This includes the walls and ceilings. The resident is also responsible for cleaning the windows internally and externally, and keeping the windows glazed. The landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of the block, the common parts, and the window sashes (frames).
9. The landlord’s damp and mould policy reiterates that leaseholders are responsible for their own property unless the damp is caused by building defects or common areas.
10. After the resident first reported damp and mould it would have been reasonable for the landlord to outline its position on what repairs it would or would not undertake. It took the landlord 4 months to survey the property and inform her of her repair responsibilities. Under its repairs policy, non-urgent repairs are to be completed in 28 calendar days. Therefore, 4 months to survey the property was unreasonable.
11. We have not received a copy of the landlord’s survey. There is no evidence this was shared with the resident. The landlord did not clearly communicate that there were no structural defects, or issues with the common parts. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain its own findings to the resident, given her concerns about the structure of the property. This would have then meant it telling her to dispute its position and be reimbursed for surveyor costs were reasonable. By not doing so, the lack of transparency was unfair and has attributed to a breakdown in communication between the parties.
12. Additionally, the landlord said it had responded to the resident’s queries about damp and mould from November 2023, but her email provider rejected its communication. We have not been provided evidence from the landlord on what it was trying to communicate. In any event, it was unreasonable it did not attempt an alternative method of communication, as it was aware the resident was not receiving its emails.
13. The landlord also said in its stage 1 response that its investment team would conduct a stock inspection survey and consider potentially replace the windows in the block. There is no evidence it did so. The landlord’s mismanaged the resident’s expectations and it failed to provide its position about planned investment, or any timescales.
14. Under our remedies guidance consideration is given for the length of time length of time the resident specifically experienced detriment. We cannot consider how her neighbours were affected by the landlord’s actions or inactions. It is clear the resident expended time and trouble for a period of 10 months from her first report until the final response. The landlord did not identify all its errors by its final response. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of £100 was not proportionate to put things right. As above, we have awarded additional compensation to the resident which reflects the time and trouble caused by its communication failings.

15. The evidence showed the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 10 January 2024 by phone. There is evidence she reported damp and mould issues earlier but did not submit a complaint until then.
16. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days but failed to respond to the complaint inside its 10-working day target. It took the landlord 116 working days to issue its stage 1 response. The landlord referenced that a staff member was assigned the complaint on 6 June 2024. Besides that, there was limited explanation provided for the delays. This demonstrated poor communication.
17. We acknowledge that on 17 June 2024 the landlord said it needed to extend the deadline, but the complaint response was already overdue at that stage.
18. The stage 1 complaint response also included incorrect event dates. The landlord incorrectly referenced that the resident’s complaint was made 12 January 2024, and a surveyor attended on 3 March 2024. This was poor record keeping and caused the resident distress.
19. Delays continued after the complaint was escalated. The landlord’s complaints policy commits to acknowledging escalations in 5 working days and responding in 20 working days. The landlord was 33 working days over target in acknowledging her escalation request. It did however send its response within 20 working days from acknowledgment, but the resident’s complaint journey was delayed inappropriately.
20. While the landlord made an offer of £50 in compensation to put things right, we have awarded increased compensation. The landlord’s offer did not recognise significant time and trouble expended by the resident, or the distress experienced.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. As above, the landlord failed to provide evidence of its own survey to us or share it with the resident. It also did not provide any call logs or alternative communication attempts besides email with the resident.
22. As above, the landlord referenced incorrect dates in its stage 1 response, which caused the resident confusion and loss of trust in the accuracy of its investigation.

Communication

23. The landlord’s overall communication was poor. Our spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds recommended to landlords that:
    1. Where maintenance works are planned residents should be informed of the work that will be undertaken and the timescale for completion.
    2. Where a decision is taken to postpone cyclical works residents should be advised of the decision and informed when a further inspection will take place.
    3. A landlord should provide clear details to residents regarding items covered by the sinking fund and planned schedules for replacement or improvements.
24. Had the landlord considered these recommendations it may have avoided its lack of transparency and communication failings with the resident.
25. Also, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is statutory, and the landlord is required to adhere to the timescales set. It was positive it identified the need to improve its complaint handling in its final response.