‘Horrible’ and ‘intolerable’ conditions described by Peabody residents as Ombudsman makes 4 severe maladministration findings

The Housing Ombudsman has made 4 findings of severe maladministration for Peabody in 4 different cases, with residents describing the conditions they were forced to live in as “horrible” and “intolerable”.

The cases include complaint handling, adaptations and overdue repairs.

With the important role that social housing has to play in giving safe and secure housing to millions, the learning in these reports should help landlords provide effective services that protect this aspiration.

Case A

In Case A (202107763) the Ombudsman found severe maladministration for how the landlord handled a complaint about cladding, which meant a response to her initial reports were only formally responded to 211 working days later.

After the resident first raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord, it took 9 months for it to be escalated to a stage 1 complaint, and only after 24 repeated emails from the resident, an intervention by the resident’s MP, and a direct email to the landlord’s chief executive office.

When it did issue a formal response, it largely was the same as the informal response it originally gave and did not cover her concerns.

After it was escalated to stage 2, the landlord was unable to inform the resident what it was going to consider, causing further confusion and distress.

It also originally said due to the issues being outside of its control it would not offer compensation, before awarding the full amount under its policy. Unfortunately following this the resident said poor communication from the landlord continued.

The Ombudsman ordered the landlord’s chief executive to apologise for the failing and to pay an extra £500 in compensation on top of the previously offered amount.

Case B

In Case B (202201791) the Ombudsman found severe maladministration after the landlord took 14 months to repair a roof and a further 12 months to install insulation, which ended up leaving a family living in cold, damp and mouldy conditions for two years causing significant distress and inconvenience to the residents.

Whilst it offered compensation due to the delay, this was not proportionate to the time taken to fix the roof or the distress caused. There was a six month delay in obtaining the asbestos reports and then a further 6 months delay in having the roof replaced.

There was no evidence the landlord took any steps to mitigate the three further leaks that occurred whilst waiting for the roof to be replaced, leading to damp and mould in three rooms and the wet room being unusable for the disabled household member.

The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to pay £3,768 in compensation, for a senior leader to apologise to the resident and provide a report on how it has developed its approach to thoroughly inspecting properties when leaks, damp and mould are identified, especially where there are vulnerabilities recorded.

Case C

In Case C (202201395) the Ombudsman found severe maladministration after delays and lack of urgency shown when co-ordinating adaptations works led to the required works never being delivered.

It meant the resident, whose daughter has severe disabilities, had to carry her up and down stairs due to the property not having been adapted to meet her needs.

This was despite its commitment to monitor the works through to completion. There was a failure to assess the impact of the process on the resident, who described his conditions as “intolerable”, or offer any adjustments – as well as poor communication throughout.

Although there were some times in which third parties delayed the works, the landlord’s responsibility to coordinate this was sometimes unacceptable. Whilst works were due to be ongoing, the residents would have needed a decant but this was not secured.

As such, advice in its stage 2 response that works would be underway soon was misleading and shows no attempt to manage expectations. At the time of determination, the works had still not been completed.

The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to pay £1,750 in compensation, arrange for a decant for the resident and his family, and keep him regularly updated about how works are progressing.

Case D

In Case D (202116900) the Ombudsman found severe maladministration after the landlord did not investigate its handling of the resident’s repairs earlier, and the subsequent compensation at the time of its final response. This was despite the landlord saying the home was “in a very dangerous state” during one inspection.

Whilst the resident wanted the landlord to look at a complaint that originated 8 years before raising it, the landlord said it could only look at cases raised with it within 6 months. However, it did not mention there was discretion there.

The Ombudsman found that whilst 8 years may have been inappropriate, it should have looked back 4 years previous to the complaint in which a leak was not resolved satisfactorily.

In the following years, there is evidence of many more complaints and inspections but ultimately no formal action to resolve the issue. The resident has described her living conditions as “horrible” and explained that living with damp and mould had destroyed several personal items including food, furniture, and sentimental belongings.

The compensation offered to the resident by the landlord was £700. The Ombudsman therefore ordered the landlord to pay £5,053 in compensation, a review of its repairs record keeping, and an apology from a senior member of the organisation.

In its learning from these cases, the landlord says it has formed a specialist, centralised complaints handling team who make sure any issues are handled promptly and also improve its record keeping.

Peabody Landlord performance report 2022/23 pdf

In all cases of severe maladministration, the Ombudsman invites the landlord to provide a learning statement.