Peabody Trust (202439814)

Background

1. The resident has occupied the property since December 2007 with her 2 children. She instructed a solicitor and on 24 February 2023, submitted a disrepair claim to the landlord that said it had failed to carry out repairs since December 2020. The disrepair claim was not taken further. In August 2023, the resident reported her boiler was not working and safety was very important to her. The landlord replaced the boiler in October 2023, but the resident says other repairs have not been fully addressed.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident reporting:
   1. Issues with the boiler and a lack of hot water and gas.
   2. Multiple repair issues at the property, including damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord provided reasonable redress in relation to the resident reporting issues with the boiler and lack of hot water and gas.
5. We have found the complaint about the resident reporting multiple repair issues at the property, including damp and mould, to be outside of our jurisdiction.
6. The landlord provided reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have not made any orders. 

Summary of reasons

7. While there was a delay replacing the boiler, the landlord offered compensation under its internal complaints procedure that sufficiently remedied matters for the resident.
8. The resident complained to the landlord in 2021 about multiple repairs. The landlord’s complaints procedure was not exhausted at the time, but the issues were not then escalated with us until December 2024. By this point, the issue was out of jurisdiction because it was not brought to us within 12 months of matters arising.
9. The landlord delayed responding to the complaint but acknowledged this and made reasonable attempts to put things right.

Putting things right

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.

10. Having reported an issue with the boiler on 7 August 2023, a contractor did attend and identify an issue and repaired it the following day. However, further issues were reported and responded to on 30 August 2023 and 1 September 2023. Although repairs were carried out, the engineer recommended the boiler be replaced. Before the boiler could be replaced, the gas had to be switched off on 16 September 2023 due to there possibly being carbon monoxide. This led to the resident having no gas until 19 October 2023, when a new boiler was fitted.
11. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs policy says specialist works, such as boiler replacement, should be completed within 60 calendar days. In this case, the repair took slightly longer than that to resolve, but this was acknowledged by the landlord in both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. It acknowledged the inconvenience this had caused the resident and made reasonable attempts to put things right.
12. The resident was without gas for 33 days which made it difficult to prepare meals as well as being without hot water. The landlord offered the resident compensation in accordance with its Compensation and Remedies Policy. This was made up of:
    1. £10 for a missed appointment.
    2. £3 a day for the loss of heating after the first 24 hours for the period 1 October to 19 October 2023 (19 days x £3 = £57).
    3. It also offered £1 for each day per person on the tenancy (3 people = £3) x 46 days, due to a lack of hot water, equalling £138.
    4. A further £320 was offered to recognise a total loss of gas after the first 24 hours, made up of £10 for each day (£10 x 32 days).
13. The landlord also offered the resident £260 compensation for the moderate time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the lack of heating and gas, which was in line with the amount suggested in its policy. That amounted to £785 compensation in total, for the lack of heating and gas. The landlord did also offer an additional £200 compensation, but that was for poor complaint handling, which will be addressed, later.
14. The resident has said she is unhappy the landlord did not fit a combi-boiler. However, the landlord noted her request but explained it would be replacing the boiler like-for like. While the resident was disappointed with the landlord’s decision, it had an obligation to ensure the property had heating and hot water. There was no requirement for it to fit a specific boiler type, so it complied with its obligations.
15. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler and it recognised moderate inconvenience (as opposed to long term or permanent) had been caused to her having to live with these issues longer than she should. The £785 compensation offered was in line with its own guidance, and also with this Service’s Remedies guidance for findings of maladministration. As a result, the Ombudsman would have made the same or similar award in the circumstances, and we therefore find that the landlord made an offer which was reasonable and proportionate to resolve the complaint.

16. We may not investigate all complaints referred to us. What we can and cannot consider is set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). It is our practice to limit the scope of our investigations to complaints that were brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. We may also not consider complaints brought to us more than 12 months after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure.
17. When the resident complained to the landlord on 18 October 2023 she complained in detail about the lack of hot water and heating. While she mentioned some other repairs were outstanding, she did not say what they were. However, after receiving the landlord’s stage 1 response, she responded on 22 February 2024 by setting out all the issues/repairs that she felt the landlord needed to consider as part of her complaint. They were:
    1. A defective front door, letting in a draught.
    2. Kitchen cupboards and windows that needed replacing and there was condensation/damp.
    3. The kitchen sink leaked.
    4. The water tank in the airing cupboard was damaging the flooring and damaging the ceiling due to a leak.
    5. The back door was damaged and let in a draught.
    6. The bathroom had plumbing issues and the toilet moved.
    7. Both bedrooms had condensation and damp around the windows.
18. We have been provided with a copy of a Letter of Claim sent by the resident’s solicitor, to the landlord on 24 February 2023. This set out all of the defects at the property that the resident wanted the landlord to address as part of a disrepair claim. Against each of the defects/repairs, the solicitor set out when the resident first became aware of the issue. All of the issues listed in the resident’s email of 22 February 2024, not only formed part of the claim in 2023, but were confirmed as being known about from December 2020.
19. The resident did make an earlier complaint to the landlord on 17 October 2021 about some of these issues, but the complaint was not referred to the Ombudsman at that time. The complaint was not actually referred to us until December 2024.
20. The repairs complained about now, were not brought to us promptly after raising them with the landlord in 2021 as they should have been brought within 12 months of matters arising. Due to the time that has passed, it would not be fair or reasonable to investigate these issues, so this aspect of the complaint has been deemed out of jurisdiction.

21. The landlord acknowledged the 18 October 2023 complaint promptly and said the resident should receive a response within 10 working days. However, it did not issue a response until nearly 3 months later, on 11 January 2024. Although there is no evidence of the resident chasing the landlord for a response, the resident does not seem to have been advised there would be a delay, which is unreasonable, as her expectations were therefore not properly managed.
22. Despite it being clear on 17 January 2024 that the resident wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2, there was a further delay due to the complaint handler being on leave. This was not explained to the resident for 2 months and the landlord should have processes in place to deal with such events. It took over 9 weeks for the landlord to issue its stage 2 response, although it is important to acknowledge that the resident did not provide details of the outstanding repairs she wanted the landlord to address until 22 February 2024.
23. Overall, the landlord failed to follow its Complaints policy and delayed responding to the complaint. It did however acknowledge this when it responded to the complaint. It offered the resident £200 compensation to recognise that, in accordance with its policy, there had been an extensive failure to investigate the complaint correctly which inevitably impacted on the resident.
24. The £200 compensation offered was in line with its own guidance on compensation for poor complaint handling, and also with this Service’s Remedies guidance. It was proportionate to the detriment caused. As a result, the Ombudsman would have made the same or similar award in the circumstances, and we therefore find that the landlord has made an offer which was reasonable and proportionate to resolve the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s repairs log lists repairs reported but does not clearly show what work was done at each visit and when each repair was completed. The landlord ought to review the level of detail it records against each job, so it holds sufficient detail setting out what work was done at each visit and what remains outstanding.

Communication

26. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations in terms of when she could expect to receive a response to her complaint. The landlord should ensure someone actively monitors open complaints, there is a process to cover staff absence and that residents are updated if timescales are likely to be missed.