Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Peabody Trust (201703374)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201703374

Peabody Trust

29 April 2022


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

  1. The complaint is about the current landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation relating to a period without hot water, and the subsequent remedial repair works.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been a secured tenant at the property of the previous landlord (and now the current landlord) since 25 September 1989. Both the previous landlord and the current landlord were/are registered providers of social housing.
  2. At the beginning of the period of the complaint, the landlord was Family Mosaic. In or around mid-2018, that landlord merged with Peabody.
  3. The current landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that a complaint escalation request should be made within 10 working days of a stage one response and that the current landlord may choose not to escalate a complaint if a request is made beyond this deadline. The policy also notes that complaints should be made within six months of the date when the resident became aware of the event being complained about.
  4. The previous landlord also operated a two stage complaints policy.
  5. The current landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes it can offer goodwill compensation up to £150 for a resident’s time and trouble in pursuing a complaint, and up to £50 for poor complaint handling.
  6. The complaint dates back to 2013 and it is evident that there are gaps in the correspondence provided to this service. The investigation is therefore limited to the correspondence available, and the inferences that can be made from this correspondence.
  7. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has communicated with all parties via handwritten letters, and it is not disputed that he did not wish to be contacted by either landlord via the telephone.

Summary of events

  1. In or around November 2013, the resident reported issues with his boiler. The resident has advised that the boiler was around 30 years old and was now leaking gas and not functioning correctly.
  2. Around this time, the resident contacted a local Citizens’ Advice Centre for assistance with pursuing the repairs. Based on the communications between the Citizens’ Advice Centre and the previous landlord, the previous landlord arranged for a repair person to attend the resident’s property in December 2013, however, the resident was not at the property when the repair person attended. The Citizens’ Advice Centre subsequently requested that the previous landlord arrange a further visit. It is also evident that around this time, the previous landlord provided the resident with temporary electric heaters.
  3. On or around 7 May 2014, the resident (via the Citizens’ Advice Centre) requested an update regarding the ongoing repair issues with the boiler. The resident has referenced commencing court proceedings in relation to the issues with the boiler, resulting in the previous landlord arranging for an inspection of the boiler in or around June 2014. This service has not been provided with any documents relating to the referenced court proceedings.
  4. On 23 July 2014, the Citizens’ Advice Centre noted that following the inspection, the boiler had been deemed “unsafe,” but that the previous landlord had not taken any further action to repair or replace the boiler. On 10 November 2014, the resident (via the Citizens’ Advice Centre) made a formal complaint that the boiler had not been working for six months. The resident had also served a ‘Section 11 notice’ on the previous landlord demanding it commence works to the boiler no later than 8 October 2014, but the previous landlord had not responded or commenced the works.
  5. It is evident that following the complaint, there was some communication between the parties, prior to the previous landlord providing a stage one response on or around 7 May 2015. It noted that the boiler was replaced in February 2015, but that the resident had been without a working boiler from the end of April 2014 until that point. It advised that following its contractor determining the boiler was unsafe, they had failed to correctly raise a work order with the previous landlord for its replacement. The previous landlord noted it had been made aware of this by August 2014, following which, it was unable to account for why the repairs had been delayed until February 2015. It therefore offered compensation of £225, being £25 for each month the boiler was not operational.
  6. The previous landlord also noted that it had provided temporary electric heaters, and that the resident had subsequently requested to be compensated for the extra utility bills. The previous landlord advised it would pay him £411.84 for the period the heaters were supplied. Regarding the remedial works required following the installation of the new boiler, the previous landlord noted that its repair person had attempted to arrange the works, but that the resident had “refused.” It subsequently advised that should the resident wish it to attend, it could still do so.
  7. It is evident that following the stage one response, the resident requested an escalation of the complaint, and that the landlord subsequently provided a stage two response which reiterated its position as set out in the stage one response. This service has not, however, been provided with a copy of the stage two response.
  8. In late 2016, the resident referred his concerns to his local MP, who subsequently contacted the previous landlord on 8 December 2016 and advised that the resident still wished for the remedial works at his property following the boiler installation to be completed. The previous landlord wrote to the resident on 14 December 2016 and advised it was still willing to complete these works and requested he contact its repairs team to arrange the works.
  9. On 1 February 2017, the resident advised the previous landlord that its repairs person had attended and filled some of the holes in his property around the boiler, but that a wooden cover box remained unpainted. He requested that the repair person return to complete the works. He also advised he considered that due to the previous boiler leaking gas, his energy bills were higher than usual, for which he wanted compensation. The previous landlord replied on 15 March 2017 and advised that the resident should contact its repairs team to arrange any further works, and that in order for it to consider any compensation relating to energy costs, the resident would need to make a compensation application.
  10. The resident has provided a scanned copy of a letter dated 18 May 2017 which he has advised this service was sent to the previous landlord. The letter notes the resident attempted to call the previous landlord on or around 9 March 2017 to arrange the further works but had not heard back. He also requested that a compensation application form be provided to him. During later communications with the previous landlord, this service has referenced this letter, however, the previous landlord has denied receipt of this letter. In its communication with this service dated 6 July 2017, the previous landlord advised it was still awaiting the resident to contact its repairs team and submit a compensation application.
  11. Following communications from this service, the previous landlord contacted the resident on 3 November 2017 and speculatively apologised should it have mislaid the resident’s letter. It subsequently provided the resident with a copy of the compensation application form and noted its repairs team was yet to have received a request for further repairs.
  12. On 8 January 2018, the resident advised the previous landlord that he had submitted the compensation application form, but not heard back. Following communications from this service, the previous landlord advised on 26 February 2018 that it had not received any compensation application form and that the resident had not contacted its repairs team. It confirmed the complaint had completed its internal complaints procedure, and that it did not believe the resident would be entitled to any further compensation even if he did submit the application.
  13. In July 2018, the previous landlord merged with the current landlord. After a period of delay, this service subsequently forwarded the resident’s compensation application to the current landlord and requested it provide a formal response.
  14. The current landlord provided its stage one response on 27 April 2020. It noted its complaints policy prevented it from considering complaints about events which occurred more than six months prior to the complaint being made. It advised that while it had discretion to still accept complaints older than this, in this instance, due to the historic nature of the complaint being from a period in which the previous landlord was operating, and the difficulty in assessing the timeframes in which the boiler would have been leaking/additional electricity subsequently used, it would not be able to consider the complaint. It nevertheless acknowledged that the resident had experienced difficulties as a result of the issues raised and so offered £200 by way of goodwill compensation in recognition of this.
  15. The resident subsequently expressed to this service his dissatisfaction with the current landlord’s response, however, it is not evident that he formally requested an escalation of the complaint until early 2021. On 22 April 2021, the current landlord advised that due to the time that had elapsed since its stage one response, it would not escalate the complaint and that its stage one response was its final complaint response. It also reiterated that its offer of compensation remained open.
  16. The resident has subsequently expressed his dissatisfaction with this outcome and has noted that the delays were not his fault. In particular, he noted that at various times, this service did not provide responses to his queries for extended periods, due to the increased demands on this service.

Assessment and findings

  1. The events of this complaint include responses by both the previous landlord and the current landlord. The determination made as part of this investigation, however, will relate only to the response of the current landlord. While there were clear failings in the response of the previous landlord, as referred to below, given that the previous landlord is no longer operating as a separate entity, any determination made against the previous landlord would serve no purpose. There is still value, however, for the current landlord to learn from the service failures made by the previous landlord.
  2. The Ombudsman also notes that the Housing Ombudsman Scheme provides that complaints that were not brought to a landlord’s attention within six months of the matter arising may be out of jurisdiction. This is because of the difficulty in investigating older complaints due to evidence not being available. In this instance, while the Ombudsman has chosen to exercise its discretion and carry out an investigation, there are clear gaps in the communications and records provided to this service which has made it difficult to make a solidly founded determination about the events that occurred. The current landlord has also raised this concern in its formal response, which is discussed further below.
  3. It is evident that following the resident’s initial reports of concerns regarding his boiler, the previous landlord initially arranged an assessment of the boiler, but it is not clear what the outcome of this assessment was, or whether any advice was provided to the resident. This led to the resident commencing court proceedings, however, once again, this service has not been provided with evidence relating to this period and so it is unclear why the previous landlord did not provide updates following the resident’s request.
  4. Following the previous landlord’s second assessment of the boiler in or around July 2014, it is evident from its stage one response that its contractor failed to raise the correct work orders following the visit. It is also evident that the resident chased up the previous landlord prior his formal complaint, following which the previous landlord continued not to take any action. It its stage one response, the previous landlord acknowledged this had been the case, but failed to provide an adequate explanation as to why this was.
  5. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the previous landlord’s record keeping and internal processed for arranging repairs were clearly lacking, and the delays experienced by the resident would have caused him considerable distress and inconvenience. While it is possible other evidence not seen by this service would have had an effect on any determination, it is likely a finding of maladministration would have been made. Additionally, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord made an offer of compensation. Given that there is clearly missing evidence from this period, it cannot be determined if this offer would have amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.
  6. Following the previous landlord’s stage two response, the landlord’s MP reiterated the concerns, to which the previous landlord reiterated its offer to arrange the further works and requested that the resident contact its repairs team. The previous landlord has also given this position to this service.
  7. The previous landlord’s formal responses also considered compensation in relation to the additional energy used by the resident while running electric heaters. It is evident that the resident also expressed concern about the cost of energy due to his position that the boiler had been leaking gas. In its responses to the resident’s MP, the previous landlord requested that the resident make a formal application for compensation in relation to the increased energy costs for it to consider.
  8. This service has been provided with copies of the resident’s handwritten letters to the previous landlord in which he further requests the previous landlord reattend his property to carry out remedial works. He also requests that the previous landlord provide him with a copy of the compensation application form. The previous landlord later advised this service that it had not received any such correspondence from the resident. Given that this correspondence was sent to the previous landlord by post, this service is unable to conclusively determine whether it was successfully received by the previous landlord or not. In any case, given that the previous landlord was aware of the concerns of the resident and that he was even attempting to chase the repairs through his MP, it would have been appropriate for it to write to him to confirm no further requests had been received, which it did not do.
  9. Following advice from this service that the resident had attempted to contact the landlord, the landlord appropriately acknowledged it was possible it had mislaid his correspondence and provided him with a copy of the application form. This service has been provided with a copy of the completed application form subsequently submitted by the resident, however, it is not evident this was processed by the previous landlord prior to it merging with the current landlord.
  10. Given that elements of the complaint remained unresolved, this service subsequently referred the complaint to the current landlord. As noted above, while a finding of maladministration may have been found against the previous landlord, the Ombudsman does not consider the current landlord to be responsible for the repair failures of the previous landlord in this instance.
  11. Following the referral from this service, the landlord appropriately opened an investigation into the resident’s concerns and provided a formal response. The current landlord’s complaint policy notes that it may not investigate complaints which relate to events that occurred over six months prior to being brought to its attention. As with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme referred to above, the Ombudsman considers such a policy to be reasonable given the difficulty that a significant delay presents in effectively investigating a complaint.
  12. In its formal response, the current landlord noted the resident’s concerns regarding compensation for energy use but noted it would be unable to effectively investigate this given the lack of surviving evidence. While it is evident that the resident was not the cause of the delay in the previous landlord’s response, the current landlord’s position was nevertheless reasonable, given that it too was not responsible for the delays.
  13. By way of recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord’s offer of £200 goodwill compensation was also appropriate. It would have been helpful, however, had it clarified that the previous offer of compensation, both for the delays to the boiler works and for the energy use, had been paid. Had it not been paid; it would have been helpful had the current landlord provided its position on whether it would then honour this payment. The current landlord did not do this, however, in the circumstances, while this would have been best practice, it does not constitute service failure. A recommendation has been made below that the landlord provide its position on the previous compensation, should it not have been paid.
  14. While a significant amount of time has now passed, it is not evident whether the outstanding remedial works have also been addressed. The current landlord’s stage one response did not address the outstanding repairs, however, given that it was only in receipt of the resident’s application for compensation, while it was aware this had been a concern (which it considered it was unable to consider due to the time that had elapsed), it is not evident it was aware if this concern remained in contention. A recommendation has therefore also been made below that the current landlord clarify whether there are any outstanding works relating to the boiler installation and make arrangements for these works if they remain outstanding.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the current landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s request for compensation relating to a period without hot water, and the subsequent remedial repair works.

 

Reasons

  1. Based on the evidence received by this service, a finding of maladministration against the previous landlord would have been likely in relation to the significant delays to its inspection of the resident’s boiler, and the subsequent replacement of his boiler. It is also evident that the previous landlord failed to adequately investigate or respond to the ongoing concerns of the resident about compensation and remedial works. Given, however, that the previous landlord is now defunct, a determination against this landlord cannot be made.
  2. Having received a referral of the resident’s complaint, the current landlord’s response that it was unable to effectively investigate the complaint due to the time that had elapsed was reasonable, and its offer of goodwill compensation in recognition of the frustration experienced by the resident was appropriate in the circumstances.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following:
    1. enquire as to whether the resident received the earlier offers of compensation made by the previous landlord;
    2. if not, provide its position on whether it will pay this compensation;
    3. enquire as to whether there are any outstanding repair works in relation to the installation of the new boiler.