Peabody Trust (202011082)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011082

Peabody Trust

21 September 2021

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 leaseholder 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 about the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s complaint about:
1. His reports of a leak outside his property.
2. His request for information on making an insurance claim.
3. Events that occurred after the final complaint response of 7 December 2020.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure.
The leaseholder has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of events after it sent its final complaint response, including damage caused to his property by the landlord’s contractors. This was not raised, and therefore not investigated, by the landlord as part of the formal complaint. Accordingly, this is not something that this Service can investigate, in line with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to address these issues first.

Background and summary of events

The complainant (the leaseholder) is the leaseholder of his property, and the landlord the freeholder. The leaseholder’s tenant resides in his property, which is a ground-floor flat. The lease for the property says that “the landlord has previously granted or intends to grant leases of all the other flats in the building”. For ease of reference, the leaseholder of the flat directly above the complainant’s is referred to as “the neighbour”.
The leaseholder has explained that he first reported a repair to stop water from leaking onto his decking in May 2020. Evidence of this has not been provided for this investigation. The landlord has provided screenshots from conversations between its social media team and the leaseholder. Due to the nature in which the landlord has provided the screenshots, the dates of the correspondence between June and August 2020 is approximate.
On 18 June 2020 the leaseholder reported that the decking at his property was damaged by pipes leaking outside and, on 23 June 2020, he sent a video of what the landlord believed was the building’s guttering leaking or overflowing in the rain. The landlord advised that it was only carrying out essential repairs, due to the coronavirus, and the repair would be arranged once its repairs service returned to normal. It directed the leaseholder to check its website for updates. The landlord advised the leaseholder to claim on the building insurance for the damage to his decking. It said that, if he did not have the insurer’s details, it could provide them.
On 10 August 2020, the leaseholder asked the landlord to repair the leak and provide its insurer’s details. On 13 August 2020 the landlord raised repairs to the property’s guttering and downpipe and said its contractor would book an appointment directly with the leaseholder. The landlord also said it had sent the leaseholder’s insurance query to its insurance team.
Between 18 and 21 August 2020 the leaseholder pursued a response. He said he would arrange for the repair of his decking and send the invoice to the landlord because this could not wait, due to health and safety concerns. The leaseholder also said that the landlord’s contractor called him to say he was at the property without notice, and the tenant was not in the property.
The landlord internally said, on 21 August 2020, that it had provided the leaseholder with the buildings insurance document he required. The landlord has not provided evidence of it sending the leaseholder this information.
On 21 August 2020, according to the landlord’s later complaint response, it gave the leaseholder two main points of contact in its customer service team. The leaseholder then contacted a senior member of the landlord’s staff regarding the delay in the repairs. Evidence of this correspondence has not been provided for this investigation.
Following a call with the landlord, on 9 September 2020, the leaseholder sent it an email to confirm that the landlord said that the neighbour would complete internal repairs and the landlord would complete external repairs on 11 September 2020. Both repairs in conjunction would resolve the leak. The leaseholder asked for a report on the damage, subsequent repairs, and any further information “regarding claims that [was] discussed”. It is not apparent what this meant.
The landlord and leaseholder corresponded between 9 and 10 September 2020. The landlord said that, after some difficulty contacting the neighbour, it wrote to them, and they agreed to allow access for the landlord to complete the internal repairs. The landlord explained that it could not provide the leaseholder with the contact details of the neighbour, due to data protection, but its homeowner team could liaise with them.
The landlord confirmed, on 11 September 2020, that it completed repairs to the drainage stack that morning, and visited the upstairs property and carried out a repair to the “F&E tank, which was causing a slight drip”. The landlord advised that the neighbour confirmed that they also completed internal works in the previous week. The landlord said that it still needed to complete repairs to the guttering and would complete these when the leaseholder’s tenant returned from holiday. Finally, the landlord gave the leaseholder the name of a contact in its homeowner team to manage his enquiries.
On 14 September 2020 the leaseholder asked for a copy of the repair report. He also sent an email to his contact in the homeowner team to ask how he may make a claim for the replacement of his decking. The leaseholder sent a further email saying that his email was undeliverable to the homeowner team contact, whose email he had to guess. On the same day, the landlord replied and provided the report from its contractor’s visit. It confirmed that its contractor asked for the neighbour’s details and provided the details they were given.
On 17 September 2020 the leaseholder asked several questions regarding the nature of the delays to the repairs. He also confirmed that his builders would soon complete the replacement of his decking, and queried who he should sent the invoice to and/or who’s insurance company this would be processed through. On 18 September 2020 the landlord directed the leaseholder’s queries to staff in its customer service team to address the next steps. On 25 September 2020 and 3 October 2020, the leaseholder said he had contacted members of this team and they had not responded. He attached the invoice for the work to his decking that had now been completed.
The leaseholder contacted the landlord’s chief executive’s office on 11 October 2020 regarding the delays in the repairs being resolved, poor communication and a lack of responses regarding who was responsible for the damage to his property. The chief executive’s office acknowledged the leaseholder’s contact on 12 October 2020.
On 21 October 2020 the landlord raised a repair for cleaning and maintenance to the property’s gutters.
The leaseholder asked for an update on 28 October 2020 and said he had received a call from a contractor regarding works to the guttering at the property. The chief executive’s office replied on 28 October 2020 that it decided that the best course of action would be to follow its formal complaints procedure and it would ask its complaints officer to update the leaseholder.
Between 2 and 3 November 2020 the leaseholder and the landlord’s chief executive’s office corresponded. The leaseholder expressed his concern that the formal complaint would delay things further and that he had not been contacted regarding the outstanding works. He was unhappy with the time taken for the landlord to decide to raise a formal complaint. The landlord responded that it decided to raise a complaint so that the leaseholder could approach this Service for review, should he wish to take this action. It said that the complaint was passed to the complaints officer on 19 October 2020 and a full response should have been provided within ten working days, which had just elapsed. It said that the complaints officer would be the leaseholder’s point of contact surrounding the case and it asked the complaints officer to contact the leaseholder urgently.
On 10 November 2020, the landlord attended the property in relation to the gutter repairs.
On 11 and 12 November 2020 the leaseholder asked for an update.
Following a call with the leaseholder on 12 November 2020, the landlord wrote to him on 13 November 2020 with what appears to be its stage one complaint response. It said that “whilst we appreciate that there was a delay in getting back to you with information regarding who to contact to make a claim for the decking, unfortunately, we are not able to reimburse you”. It directed the leaseholder to make a claim through its building insurer and provided the details. The landlord offered the leaseholder £100 for poor communication.
On 13 November 2020, the leaseholder asked to escalate his complaint about the landlord’s handling of the issue, including: the time it took to fix the problem, the communication and lack of responses to his emails, the length of time taken to raise a complaint, and the delay in him being provided with the landlord’s insurer’s details. The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 17 November 2020.
On 18 November 2020 the landlord raised works for scaffolding to be erected to confirm what repairs were needed to the gutters.
On 25 November 2020 the leaseholder said that he received a call from the landlord’s contractor regarding scaffolding being erected. He was unhappy that the landlord had not informed him that further works were required. He requested an update on 30 November 2020 and confirmed that scaffolding was erected to the building. The landlord replied on 2 December 2020 that it was requesting further information.
The leaseholder asked for an update on 3 December 2020 and said that a contractor told him that they needed to carry out works to the guttering. An appointment was booked for the landlord to complete the guttering works on 15 December 2020.
The landlord investigated the leaseholder’s queries, and its internal communication shows that the leak was not coming from the roof, but the property above, which was resolved, and works for guttering were subsequently assigned to another contractor in October 2020.
In the landlord’s final response, dated 7 December 2020, it explained that the main repair was completed on 15 October 2020, one month outside of its published timelines, and the main delay was getting access to the property above. As it had recently reinstated its normal repair service there was a backlog of repairs making it a challenge to complete repairs within its published guidelines. The landlord clarified that its contractors resolved the cause of the leak from the property above and recommended the gutters to be checked, which were in the process of doing. The landlord acknowledged that there were opportunities throughout the process to let you know.
The landlord explained that it advised the leaseholder about making an insurance claim when he contacted it in June 2020. It would not refund the costs to replace items that were damaged if those costs can be claimed by alternative means, and in this case, it was for the insurance provider to determine whether the damage to the decking was due to negligence by the landlord.
The landlord explained that it was not always possible for its senior members of staff to respond to all enquiries they received or monitor each repair, this was the role of its customer care team. On 13 October 2020, and following the leaseholder’s enquiry to the chief executive, it raised a complaint which would enable the leaseholder to have a have a single point of contact.
On 18 December 2020 the landlord’s contractor confirmed that 10m of guttering was to be renewed. This repair was marked as complete on 21 December 2020 and the landlord received a job completion report.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports of a leak outside of his property.

In line with the terms of the lease, the leaseholder is responsible for the interior of his flat and for any pipes which are in the flat (and are enjoyed or used only for the leaseholder’s flat). The neighbour is responsible for any pipes which serve only their flat. The landlord is responsible for any pipes which serve the building.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the communal stack or waste pipe, roof and guttering leaks and waste and drainage leaks. Leaseholders are responsible for plumbing leaks in their homes unless they are caused by communal pipework. The landlord’s repairs process on its website says that it aims to complete repairs between two and 20 days.
When the leaseholder first reported the leak, 18 June 2020, the landlord explained that it was only undertaking essential repairs at the time due to coronavirus restrictions, and directed the leaseholder to its website for updates. Following the repair being raised in August 2020, the landlord explained that there was a delay in the neighbour giving access, and it had arranged to force entry on 11 September 2020 if access was not given. While there were delays in the landlord arranging and completing the initial repairs in September 2020, the landlord’s explanation for these delays were reasonable, given the circumstances of the case and the government implementing restrictions which affected the landlord’s repairs service.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, it explained that works for guttering were assigned to another contractor in October 2020. It said the main repair was completed on 15 October 2020, one month outside of its published timelines, and the main delay was getting access to the property above. It is unclear what the landlord is referring to, when it says that the main repair was completed in October 2020, as the evidence indicates that some repairs were completed to resolve the leak on 11 September 2020, and then the guttering repairs were marked as completed on 21 December 2020.
Nonetheless, it is not apparent why it took over a month for the landlord to raise the guttering works, and it does not appear that it clearly communicated with the leaseholder about these works. The leaseholder said that he was under the impression that no works were outstanding, until he received a call from a contractor in late October 2020. He sought clarification on what these works were for, and the landlord does not appear to have provided this until its final response of 7 December 2020, despite his numerous contacts between late October and early December 2020.
In response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered £100.00 compensation “because [it] should have set out at the beginning appropriate communication and have been clearer what repairs were required”. This was a reasonable attempt to resolve the issue, was proportionate to the inconvenience caused, and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s request for information on making an insurance claim.

The landlord said that it sent the leaseholder information about making an insurance claim on 21 August 2020. However, the leaseholder said he was not advised on making an insurance claim until the landlord sent this in its stage one response of 13 November 2020. The landlord directed the leaseholder to contact different staff members about his request for information, including on 17 September 2020. However, the landlord either did not respond, or the leaseholder had not been given the correct contact details, leading to the leaseholder contacting its chief executive. It was at this point that the landlord dealt with the matter as a formal complaint.
The landlord provided advice for the leaseholder to contact it’s building insurance regarding the situation during the twitter communication, which I appreciate was before the complaint was raised. The landlord submitted a request to the insurance team to send details of the building insurance policy to the leaseholder, who was provided with a referral reference number on 13 August 2020 during a twitter conversation. The landlord has also shown that the request was indeed put through on its internal systems although it is not clear the exact dated this was raised. The landlord has also provided an email from the insurance team directly to the resident dated 21 August 2020. It has details of the insurance provider as well as a copy of the insurance summary of cover document attached.
The landlord’s initial complaint response identified that there was a delay in it providing the requested information and offered £100 for this; however, its final response said that it did not find that it delayed in giving the information and instead offered £100 for the communication regarding the repairs. The landlord has therefore failed to identify and provide redress for its poor communication regarding the insurance claim, and its offer of compensation reflected this.
With regards to complaint handling, the landlord raised this as a formal complaint on 13 October 2020. On 28 October the landlord explained that the issue had been raised as a complaint and on the same day the leaseholder questioned this as he did not believe that this was a complaint. The landlord explained that following a review of the situation by the Director of Customer Service, it was decided that it was best for the matter to be dealt with as a formal complaint as this would also give the leaseholder the opportunity to bring the case to the Ombudsman’s attention. It would be unreasonable for the Housing Ombudsman to find service failure against the landlord for the time it took to escalate the case as a complaint, as the leaseholder had not actually raised a formal complaint about the matter prior to this. However, the landlord should have provided details of its complaint process prior to this stage to give the resident an opportunity to raise the matter as a complaint if he wanted to.
According to the landlord’s complaint process, a response at the first stage will be provided within 10 working days and if not an update given to explain the reason for the delay. The leaseholder was in communication with the landlord about the ongoing complaint. On 4 November 2020 the landlord’s investigator thanked the leaseholder for taking the time to talk the day before and explained the next steps. I can see the landlord sent an email on 6 November 2020 to apologise for the delay and explained that it was still waiting for information from the leaseholder team.
I do agree that the landlord should have sent an acknowledgment of the complaint on 28 October 2020 based on the day it decided to escalate the case to a formal complaint, in order to provide a clear update about the case progress. I do not think it reasonable to penalise the landlord for this as there was communication about the status of the complaint, in that it did explain that the case had now been allocated to an investigator.
Following the stage one response of 13 November 2020, the leaseholder raised dissatisfaction with the outcome on 17 November and this was acknowledged the same day. According to the complaint process the manager looking into the stage two complaint should provide an outcome within 15 working days. The landlord provided the second response on 7 December 2020 which was within the timescales.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s complaint about his reports of a leak outside his property satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint about the leaseholder’s request for information on making an insurance claim.

Reasons

The compensation offered by the landlord for its poor communication was sufficient redress, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, for its poor communication regarding the gutter repairs. The landlord did not acknowledge its failures when handling the leaseholder’s request for information when making an insurance claim, and therefore did not offer any redress for this.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should review its processes to ensure leaseholders receive full information about all repairs required and estimated timescales or updates as to when it is due to be started.