Peabody Trust (202516199)

Background

1. The property is on the top floor in a block of flats. The resident told the landlord there was a roof leak and water had damaged his property. He said the landlord failed to repair the leak in a timely manner and did not address his concerns regarding the structure of the building. He also said the landlord’s communication was poor and it did not engage with his complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding structural issues with the building.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.
4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding structural issues with the building.
5. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The resident experienced significant time and trouble chasing up the landlord regarding his concerns about roof leaks. Despite doing this, the landlord failed to respond to many of his request for updates or provide him with sufficient information when it did respond.
7. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns regarding the structure of the building and did not address the matter in its complaint responses.
8. The landlord offered the resident an apology and compensation for its poor complaints handling. It also set out the learning it had identified and the steps it was taking to address its poor complaints handling.

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.

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.

9. In considering the landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of ongoing leaks, it is noted that he has referred to a possible impact upon his mental health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a person’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court or insurer to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if he wishes to take his concerns further.
10. It is not this Service’s role to determine liability for any damage that may have been caused to the resident’s home as this is something that would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek advice if he wishes to take his concerns further.
11. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
12. The housing records confirm the landlord received a report from a neighbouring property on 18 December 2023 that there was a roof leak which was affecting a number of flats. This included the resident’s property. Whilst the landlord took steps to investigate the leak, there is no evidence it contacted the resident or undertook an assessment to determine if water had entered his home. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this and to have determined if it was responsible for carrying out any repairs or interim actions in accordance with the resident’s lease agreement.
13. It is not disputed the resident reported a leak on 15 January 2024, although the landlord did not share details about the report with this Service. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had an obligation to meet its repairing responsibilities as set out in the resident’s lease agreement. This confirms it is responsible for the structure of the building, including the roof. The resident is responsible for keeping his property in good repair.
14. Whilst the landlord arranged for scaffolding to be erected on 15 January 2024, it is unclear what other action was taken to resolve the leak or mitigate its impacts. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will carry out emergency repairs that affect the integrity of a property within 24 hours. If it is unable to do this, it says it will carry out temporary repairs to make the area safe. It is also unclear whether the resident was provided with an update.
15. The resident said he reported a further leak on 21 January 2024, but again the landlord did not provide this Service with any details of the report or set out what action, if any, it took. This was a failure
16. The resident chased up the landlord on 24 January 2024. He said the roof had been leaking for 7 weeks and it had done nothing to resolve the problem. He noted the leak had affected a large area of his living room and he had to use buckets to catch the water. He also noted the contractor had told him it sent the landlord a variation order to erect further scaffolding.
17. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This was a further failure and meant he was unclear on what action was being taken by the landlord to resolve the leak.
18. The resident made a complaint on 26 January 2024. He said the landlord had not carried out any work and the leaks had damaged his property.
19. The landlord told the resident on 29 January 2024 that it was working with its contractor to find a solution and would complete the outstanding repairs quickly. No timescales were provided for carrying out the work. The repair records confirm a job was marked as completed on the same day, although it is unclear what the job related to or if any actual work was carried out.
20. The landlord noted on 1 February 2024 that the roof work had been placed on hold. It said this was because it needed to carry out a section 20 consultation exercise. No details on the nature of the work were shared with this Service. It is also unclear what information was shared with the resident.
21. The resident asked the landlord on the same day if the roof could be temporarily covered to prevent rainwater leaking into his flat whilst it undertook the section 20 consultation exercise. He said this was because the roof was damaged in 3 places. He also asked the landlord to provide a timeframe for when the section 20 consultation exercise would begin.
22. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so and to have undertaken an assessment to establish if the roof could be covered temporarily whilst it consulted with the leaseholders. The landlord’s failure to respond was likely to have caused the resident inconvenience and distress. It was evident he was concerned about the damage that had and continued to be caused to his property and he had asked the landlord for updates on numerous occasions.
23. The landlord did not ask its contractor if the roof could be made safe pending the section 20 consultation exercise until 6 February 2024.  It told the resident on 9 February 2024 that it was not able to provide him with an update as it was still waiting for information from its contractor and its leaseholder team. This was a further failure and led to the resident asking the landlord again on 16 February 2024 to log his complaint.
24. The resident noted on 5 March 2024 that he had not received a response to his complaint. He raised a further complaint and said his property was not protected from rainwater and he was still waiting for it to confirm the timescale for making the roof safe. He asked the landlord to confirm why it was undertaking a section 20 consultation exercise rather than trying to recoup the cost of the planned work from the new homebuilder warranty given the property was built in 2015. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This was a further failure.
25. The resident reported a further leak on 28 March 2024. The landlord arranged an appointment for 16 April 2024 to check the roof. This was consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
26. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 8 April 2024.
27. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
28. In this case, the landlord apologised for the delay in resolving the roof leak. This was appropriate. It said the roof was repaired on 29 January 2024 and a further job was raised on 28 March 2024 following the resident’s reports of another leak, with an appointment booked for 16 April 2024.
29. The landlord did not set out its position regarding the damage that was caused to the resident’s home or confirm the cause of the leak or what work had been carried out. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this given the resident’s request for this information. The landlord also failed to acknowledge its communication with the resident was poor at times. This demonstrated the landlord did not take learning from the complaint. This was not consistent with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code).
30. The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for the inconvenience caused and the time it took to investigate the root cause of the leak. The landlord’s offer was not reasonable or proportionate in the circumstances given the inconvenience, time and trouble that was caused to the resident.
31. The resident responded on the same day and noted that the landlord had not answered some of his questions. This included his questions about the underlying cause of the leak and details on the work that was carried out. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request for further information. This led to him chasing up the landlord on several occasions in April 2024.
32. The contractor visited the resident’s home on 16 April 2024 and noted the living room ceiling was water stained. No leaks were identified during the visit. It asked the landlord to contact the resident and confirm what work was carried out on the roof, given his request for further information.
33. The resident escalated his complaint on 29 April 2024. He said the appointment arranged for 16 April 2024 was of no use given the contractor was not briefed about the problems with the roof and did not inspect it. He wanted to know when the surveyor would carry out an inspection of the roof.
34. The landlord noted on 20 May 2024 that water was pooling on the roof. It said this was because the outlets were higher than the roof. It also noted a ‘‘discarded firework’’ had left a large hole in the roof. The roof was temporarily repaired and it was recommended it was renewed given the ongoing problem of water pooling.
35. The landlord visited the resident on 28 May 2024. No details of the visit were shared with this Service. The landlord noted on 10 June 2024 that the roof was flooded and needed to be drained before it could be inspected. It referred the matter to its latent defects team on 12 June 2024.
36. The landlord noted on 1 August 2024 in its final complaint response that scaffolding was erected on 1 December 2023 to address issues with birds accessing the vent systems. This offered an explanation as to the initial erection of a scaffold. It also apologised for not notifying the resident about the work.
37. Whilst the landlord confirmed the roof leak was reported on 18 December 2023 and initially affected a neighbouring property, it did not acknowledge that concerns were also raised at the same time about the resident’s property.
38. The landlord noted that the delay in repairing the roof was due to the festive period and weather conditions. It also said the leak did not reach the resident’s property until 13 January 2024, although it is unclear on what basis this conclusion was reached given concerns were raised about water leaking into a number of properties, including the resident’s home in December 2023.
39. The landlord said the roof was repaired on 29 January 2024 in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs policy for complex repairs. It also noted the work was not subject to a section 20 consultation exercise. This provided clarity. No details on the cause of the leak were, however, shared with the resident. Neither did it confirm what work was carried out. This was despite the resident’s request for this information.
40. The landlord confirmed no further leaks were identified during the inspection that was completed in April 2024. It also said the resident would need to make a claim on his building insurance for any damage that had been caused to his home. This was appropriate given the resident is responsible for the repair and maintenance of his home. It would however been reasonable for the landlord to have also advised the resident he could submit a claim against its insurance policy, if he felt it was liable for any damage that had been caused. This was especially the case given the known point of ingress was located in a location that fell into the landlord’s responsibility.
41. The landlord confirmed a new roof was required given the damage that had been caused by the firework and pooling water. It said the work would be subject to a section 20 notice and the resident would be given the opportunity to raise any concerns once he received the notice. This was appropriate and provided clarity. Under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a landlord must consult with leaseholders before it undertakes any work which will cost any leaseholder more than £250. This includes repairs, maintenance and improvements to the building. No evidence has however been seen that a section 20 consultation actually took place.
42. The landlord offered the resident an apology and increased its offer of compensation by £50 in acknowledgement of the inconvenience experienced by the resident in having to remove his possessions out of his living room.
43. The landlord’s increased offer of compensation was not reasonable in the circumstances. It is evident the resident experienced significant time and trouble having to chase up the landlord and despite doing this, it failed to respond to many of his request for updates or provided him with sufficient information when it did respond. The situation also caused the resident distress. He was reportedly concerned about the damage to his home and the potential of further leaks and additional damage. When considered cumulatively, the standard of the landlords handling of the resident reports of leaks constitute maladministration.

44. The housing records confirm the resident raised concerns about subsidence and noted the brickwork was cracked on 3 March 2024. The landlord carried out an inspection on 18 March 2024 and noted there was evidence of structural damage. It said a structural engineer needed to carry out a survey as soon as possible. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
45. The landlord noted on 25 March 2025 that the building was built in 2015 and should be referred to its latent defects team rather than a structural engineer. There is no evidence a referral was made at this point or the resident provided with an update. This led to him chasing up the landlord on 16 April 2024 and 13 May 2024. He said the landlord needed to investigate the matter urgently. Again, there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This demonstrated poor communication on the part of the landlord.
46. The landlord noted on 22 May 2024 that a large section of brickwork was cracked and scaffolding was required. A job was raised on the same day, but it was noted on 29 May 2024 that the contractor was waiting for information on the location of the building and the scope of the repairs required. It is unclear from the housing records what action was taken by the landlord in response to this information. This demonstrated poor record-keeping on the part of the landlord.
47. The resident noted on 29 May 2024 in his complaint escalation request that the landlord had visited the property on 28 May 2024 to assess the cracks in the external brickwork. No details of the visit were shared with this Service. He said he was waiting for an appointment for a structural engineer to carry out an inspection to identify the cause of the problem and establish whether it was linked to the issues with the roof.
48. The landlord provided the resident with an update on 30 May 2024. It said it had gained further information regarding the building construction and needed to provide the warranty provider with ‘‘expert reports.’’ It also said it would be erecting scaffolding and carrying out an intrusive investigation where the brickwork had been disturbed. No timescales were provided for doing this.
49. The resident chased up the landlord on 31 July 2024. He said the landlord’s latent defects team was investigating the issues with the roof and subsidence together as one issue. The landlord responded on the following day and noted it was unaware of any latent defects and suggested the resident discussed his concerns with its contact centre. This was not appropriate.
50. The landlord noted on 1 August 2024 in its final complaint response that it was unaware of any subsidence issues relating to the roof. It said its surveying team was investigating his concerns regarding the building structure, but this did not relate to his complaint. The landlord’s response was inappropriate given the resident’s ongoing concerns regarding cracked brickwork and reference to it in his complaint escalation request. This was a failure. The Code says landlords should address all of the points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice, where appropriate. The landlords handling of the resident’s concerns engendered avoidable distress, time and trouble, and a determination of maladministration has been made in respect of this.

51. The resident made a complaint on 26 January 2024. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 January 2024 to discuss his concerns and said it would treat the matter as a service request under its service recovery process. This was not appropriate given the resident had previously raised dissatisfaction and said he wanted to make a formal complaint.
52. The landlord told the resident on 16 February 2024 that it would log a formal complaint, following contact from him. This was appropriate.
53. There is no evidence the resident’s complaint was acknowledged. This was not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy and meant the resident was unclear when he would receive a reply.
54. The resident chased up the landlord regarding his complaint on 5 March 2024. He said he raised a complaint on 26 January 2024 but agreed to place it on hold on 29 January 2024 following discussions with a member of the landlord’s staff. He noted he had asked for a formal complaint to be raised on 16 February 2024.
55. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 8 April 2024. This was not consistent with the 10-working day target set out in its complaints policy. The landlord incorrectly noted that it received the resident’s complaint on 29 February 2024. This demonstrated poor record-keeping on the part of the landlord. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay in responding to his complaint. Whilst the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, it did not identify any learning from the complaint. This was a missed opportunity. This Service’s dispute resolution principles encourage landlords to not just resolve the immediate complaint, but to learn from outcomes in order to improve its wider service delivery.
56. The resident told the landlord on the same day that he would not accept the offer of compensation until it answered a number of outstanding questions. He chased the landlord up on 26 April 2024 given he had not received a response.
57. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 29 April 2024. The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 28 May 2024. This was not consistent with the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord also failed to confirm the nature of the resident’s complaint escalation request and the outcomes he was seeking. This was not consistent with the Code and meant the landlord failed to address some of the issues raised by the resident in its final complaint response. It told the resident it would provide a response within 20 working days.
58. The landlord told the resident on 25 June 2024 that it needed more time to investigate his complaint. It said it would provide a response by 23 July 2024. The revised date was not consistent with the 10-working day extension timescale set out in the Code.
59. The landlord did not issue its final complaint response by the revised deadline date. This led to the resident having to chase the landlord up on 24 July 2024 and 29 July 2024.
60. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 1 August 2024. This was some 3 months after the resident escalated his complaint. The landlord offered the resident an apology and £300 compensation for its poor complaints handling. It also set out the learning it had identified and the steps it was taking to address its poor complaints handling. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

61. The housing records provided by the landlord were limited and made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate and clear records so it is able to meet its obligations.

Communication

62. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times and it failed to respond to a number of his request for updates.