Peabody Trust (202222880)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222880

Peabody Trust

25 April 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair reports regarding damp and mould.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association which underwent a merger with another housing provider (‘Landlord A’) during the period of this complaint. The property is a 3-bedroom house and the resident, and her family have lived there since 2020.

Summary of events

Landlord records show the landlord’s Customer Service Team emailed its Complaints Team on 27 October 2022 to advise that a complaint raised on the resident’s behalf on 12 October 2022 had not been responded to. The Customer Service Team noted it had chased the Complaints Team on 24 October 2022 and the landlord was already outside its 10 working day response time. It asked the Complaints Team to contact the resident.
The Complaints Team emailed the resident the same day to advise it had no record of her complaint. She responded later that day and clarified the areas of concern she had sought to raise:
1. There was an “ongoing number of repairs”, which had been attended to by the developer during the snagging process. However, these had been “repaired but not properly” and the issues had reoccurred, including:
  1. Mould in the bathroom – she advised the room had been “repainted twice” but mould had come back, reportedly due to issues with the roof.
  2. “Awful smell in the kitchen” – an operative from the developer could not identify a smell, but the resident reported that a member of the landlord’s staff noted a “mould line behind the cupboards”. It was suggested this was due to “moisture in the cavity wall…caused by poor building practice”. They recommended installing vent tiles to remedy the issue.
  3. Damp in the living room – she reported the skirting board had already been replaced and the wall repainted and that it had been suggested the ongoing damp was caused by issues with the garden (the garden was reportedly “higher” than the house, meaning it either needed to be lowered or additional drainage should be installed).
2. She advised the issues had been reported to Landlord A in December 2021 but since then appointments had been “missed or moved without…communication”, workmen had attended “without the parts or…necessary equipment” and she had been offered callbacks which had not materialised. As a result, she stated she had “got nowhere” in the 10 months since her initial report, the situation was causing her stress and chasing repairs was consuming her time.
The landlord emailed the resident the following day to acknowledge the complaint and advise it had opened an investigation.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 17 January 2023 as the resident had advised she was yet to receive a response to her complaint. The landlord was asked to provide a response by 24 January 2023. It replied on 23 January 2023 to advise the complaint would be “reopened” at stage 1 but provided details regarding a different resident and did not give a timeframe for its response. This Service wrote to the landlord again on 31 January 2023 as the resident advised she had still not received a stage 1 response.
On 3 February 2023, internal landlord correspondence shows the resident made contact to advise she had not received a complaint response. The landlord’s Customer Service Team provided the relevant case reference to the Complaints Team and asked for them to contact the resident. The resident’s request to escalate her complaint was also relayed to the Complaints Team.
The landlord emailed the resident with a stage 1 complaint response on 9 February 2023. Its response stated it understood the complaint to be about a “lack of monitoring, communication and progress on a number of snagging issues” that had been identified and a “lack of monitoring and communication” regarding her complaint. It noted that, as a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted outstanding repairs to be “completed within a reasonable timeframe”. The landlord made the following comments and findings:
1. It found that Landlord A had “failed to monitor…outstanding actions” after the ‘end of defects inspection’ was carried out and had not given her “timely updates”. It advised Landlord A had “caused substantial delays in successfully addressing the concerns” and “had not been able to provide…notes taken during the end of defects inspection”.
2. It apologised for the fact that “little to no progress” had been made since the resident raised a complaint in October 2022.
3. It noted Landlord A had attended the property in January 2023 to carry out a mould wash in the kitchen, living room and bathroom and a further mould wash was due to take place that day.
4. It advised that Landlord A had now “aligned its latent defects process” with the landlord’s own, following their recent merger. It acknowledged that, “although there is now a process in place to monitor latent defects of our…homes”, the resident had not had the benefit of this, and Landlord A accepted she was “still awaiting a plan of action” regarding outstanding defects. It understood Landlord A had yet to carry out an inspection of the property so it could make a referral to the developers and stated this “failure in service has been highlighted to senior management” so “urgent action is taken”. It would therefore continue to monitor the outstanding issues in the bathroom, kitchen and living room.
5. It apologised for the delay in providing its complaint response and acknowledged the resident had already asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. It acknowledged the “extensive service failure” regarding how the complaint had been handled and that the resident had need to contact this Service for assistance.
6. It advised that, having investigated the complaint, feedback had been provided to Landlord A. It advised that Landlord A was restructuring its complaints team and “improvements were underway”, while issues with the Repairs and Latent Defects Teams had been highlighted, particularly regarding the monitoring of works, and Landlord A’s defects procedure was now in line with its own.
7. As a resolution to the complaint, the landlord offered a further apology and advised it had ordered an inspection to be carried out within 7 days. It offered £250 to reflect the poor handling of the resident’s complaint and stated this was the maximum it could award. It offered a further £600, again stating this was the maximum available under its policy, to reflect her “time, trouble and inconvenience” regarding the failure to provide updates, offer a mould wash sooner and provide an action plan.
Records show the resident emailed the landlord on 19 February 2023 to request that her complaint be escalated. She noted she had already asked for this to happen before the landlord had provided its stage 1 response.
On 11 April 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for not addressing the resident’s concerns at stage 1 of its complaints procedure and advised it would review how it had responded. It understood the resident’s escalation request, which it stated it had received via this Service on 24 March 2023, to be regarding:
1. The resident feeling “ignored” despite attempts to convey to the landlord how stressful it was dealing with the ongoing repairs.
2. That agreed actions have not been followed up.
3. The landlord had not treated her fairly as the reported damp and mould issues remained unresolved.
The landlord went on to make the following comments and findings on each aspect of the complaint:
1. Repairs – it apologised that “the repair” had taken “longer than we expected” to complete. It advised the repair was “not fairly straightforward” as the resident’s building was “relatively new” and therefore within the defect period. It stated that “most of the delay” was down to “trying to identify what is and what is not a defect” and that there had been correspondence with its own defect and repairs teams to establish who was responsible for various tasks. It accepted that “the result of the referral to (its) defect team” should not have resulted in “this negative impact in our services” and offered an apology.
2. The stage 1 complaint investigation – the landlord accepted it had not followed its complaint procedures when dealing with her complaint and that it had not been “managed properly”. It offered an apology for this. By way of explanation, it advised its Complaints Resolution Team had “been through a remodelling” and there had been a lot of staff turnover but added this was “no excuse for the failure to address” her complaint. It also acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint had not been actioned until the intervention of this Service.
3. Failed appointment on 17 February 2023 – it acknowledged an appointment had been missed by its contractor (although it then referred to one on 17 March 2023, which is assumed to be a typo) and explained this was due to “unforeseen circumstances” with an operative. It stated it had been in regular contact with the resident since her complaint was escalated and “will be until the repair is completed”.
4. Complaint learning –it stated it was “always a challenge when a repair and defect repair run side by side” but acknowledged there had been “significant delays” responding to the resident’s complaint and dealing with repairs. It recognised its handling of the resident’s complaint had been “below…expected standards” and advised the complaint teams for both merging housing associations were being transitioned to one service which it hoped would improve its customer service and care.
5. The landlord acknowledged the resident was entitled to be compensated for its failings in line with its policy. It noted it had offered the resident £850 compensation at stage 1 as redress and it advised it considered this fair.
6. As follow up actions, it noted an appointment with a roofing contractor had been booked for 11 April 2023 and the resident had confirmed their attendance. A further appointment with an electrician had to be cancelled but this had now been rearranged for 3 days’ time. It also clarified the resident still had the option of “taking the current contractor off the repair” but that, at present, it had been agreed to proceed with the current action plan and booked appointments. Finally, it advised it would monitor the repair works and be the resident’s point of contact “until this case is resolved”.
Following the conclusion of the complaint process, the landlord’s records show it continued to try and progress the repairs. However, while its records indicate that some repairs have been completed, in correspondence with this Service, the resident has asserted that some remain outstanding, including the installation of insulation in her loft. Landlord records show it was chasing its contractor regarding this particular repair until September 2023, when the records provided to this Service end.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repair reports regarding damp and mould

In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord initially failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s reports. While this Service has not seen evidence of the reports the resident stated she raised in 2021, the landlord has not challenged this version of events and, in its complaint responses, accepted that Landlord A had not kept notes regarding reported defects or progressed and monitored any identified defect repairs.
In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged failings with how the resident’s reports had been handled and acknowledged the repair delays she had experienced. It went on to offer its apologies and compensation at stages 1 and 2 of its complaint procedure. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress it offered during the complaint process was enough to ‘put things right’ and resolve the complaint in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
Overall, while both the resident and the landlord refer to operatives from Landlord A and the developer attending the property to carry out some repairs, this Service has not seen evidence that her reports were responded to appropriately and in a timely fashion. It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged this within its complaint responses and appropriate that it noted failings which included both the original “substantial delays in…addressing (her) concerns” but also that there had been minimal progress on progressing the repairs since she made her complaint in October 2022. It was positive that, having reviewed the case, the landlord identified these failings and determined that an offer of compensation was appropriate, along with its apologies.
To reflect the “time, effort and inconvenience” the resident had been caused, the landlord offered £600 compensation, which it stated was the “maximum” it could offer under its policy. However, the compensation policy provided to this investigation states the maximum the landlord can award for “extensive disruption” is £650. Despite this apparent error, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer at stage 1 was reasonable redress in the circumstances.
However, there then appeared to be further delays affecting the completion of the repairs. By the time the landlord issued its stage 2 response, it acknowledged at least 1 missed appointment in February 2023 and that an appointment for a roofer to attend had been booked for mid-April, some 2 months after its initial complaint response. While the landlord was entitled to consider that its previous offer of compensation was fair, it should have reconsidered whether further redress was warranted given the missed appointment and further inconvenience the resident would have been caused in the intervening period. That it did not do so was not appropriate and the landlord at this stage missed an opportunity to further ‘put things right’.
Following its final complaint response there was evidence of good practice by the landlord, as its point of contact maintained regular correspondence with the resident and chased the status of repairs with the landlord’s contractor. However, from the information available, repairs to the kitchen and living room were not completed until on or around 31 August 2023. There is evidence within the records seen by this Service of further missed appointments and, overall, another 3 months passed before these repairs were completed.
Additionally, the resident has advised this Service that the installation of roof insulation has still not taken place, a full year after the landlord issued its final complaint response. Records show the landlord was chasing the status of this order up until September 2023, when the records seen by this investigation end, so there is insufficient evidence that this work has indeed been carried out. This is not appropriate and means the landlord is unable to evidence that all the repairs have been completed and the resident will have been caused further inconvenience, as well as time and trouble chasing the repairs.
Overall, there was service failure by the landlord regarding how it responded to the resident’s repair reports and the Ombudsman would have made a finding of maladministration had it not been for the landlord fully acknowledging errors made and attempting to provide redress during the complaint process. However, given the further delays which occurred to repairs to the resident’s kitchen and living room after it offered compensation at stage 1, and the fact there is no evidence that roof insulation has yet been installed over a year later, the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to further compensate the resident, to better reflect these additional delays and the impact they will have had on her.
The landlord is also ordered to install the insulation in the resident’s roof and to arrange another inspection of the property as the resident has raised further concerns to this Service that prior repairs to the kitchen and living room have not fully resolved the damp and mould issues. The landlord should then come up with an action plan and provide a clear timeframe for resolving any outstanding or new issues identified by the survey.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Records show the resident raised a complaint with the landlord in October 2022. However, she did not receive a response at stage 1 of the complaint process until 9 February 2023, almost 4 months later and following the intervention of this Service. This was not appropriate, and it is of concern that the landlord, in correspondence with this Service, advised the complaint had been closed but then did not explain why this had happened before a response had been issued. It also failed to address this within its complaint response.
When it did issue a response at stage 1, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord made a fair attempt to address the issues raised, provide explanations as to what had caused the delays and acknowledged several failings regarding its response to the repairs. It also acknowledged it had mishandled the resident’s complaint and again sought to provide some context, while still acknowledging its failings and the impact this would have had on the resident. It reasonably offered apologies for its handling of the repairs and the complaint and, at stage 1 of the complaints procedure, offered compensation in a reasonable attempt to ‘put things right’, including £250 awarded for its complaint handling, which the Ombudsman considers to have been reasonable redress in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was similar detailed, appropriately identified failings and offered relevant apologies for these, provided explanations as to why these occurred and acknowledged the impact its service failures would have had on the resident.
However, the landlord had failed to appropriately escalate the resident’s complaint when requested. Despite acknowledging this in its stage 2 response and offering an apology, the landlord did not award any further compensation, stating that its original award had been “fair”. While it had previously advised £250 was the most it could offer, it should have considered whether redress was appropriate. This was unreasonable and meant that, despite having reviewed the case, the landlord missed an opportunity to ‘put things right’ regarding the further failings it had identified.
The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional amount of compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair reports regarding damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

While the landlord reasonably acknowledged the resident’s initial reports had not been responded to appropriately by Landlord A, following her complaint it then failed to progress them in a timely manner. While it acknowledged further delays and offered compensation for this, it did not revise this upwards at stage 2 and repairs remained outstanding for several months following its final complaint response and there is no evidence of the installation of roof insulation being completed.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in accordance with its policy and, after appearing to close it without explanation, did not provide a response until over 4 months later and after the resident had contacted this Service. It then failed to appropriately escalate the complaint when the resident asked and, although it acknowledged further failing, there is no evidence it considered whether further redress would have been appropriate.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident an additional £350, consisting of £250 to reflect further delays with completing repairs up to 31 August 2023 and £100 to reflect additional failings with its complaint handling.
2. Attend the resident’s property to install insulation in the roof.
3. Attend the property to carry out a further inspection and ascertain which, if any, issues remain outstanding. It should draw up an action plan for any new or outstanding repair issues identified and agree a timeframe for these works to be completed. It should provide the resident and this Service with a copy of both its inspection report and any subsequent action plan.
4. If the landlord identifies that damp and mould issues in the resident’s kitchen and living room have not been resolved, it should consider whether further compensation is payable to reflect this fact. It should set out its position in writing to the resident and copy this Service into this correspondence.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.