Peabody Trust 2018 (202006277)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006277

Peabody Trust 2018

30 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to a request for compensation in respect of its handling of repair reports.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s Repair Policy states that:
1. “It is the resident’s responsibility to promptly notify us of any repair that is the responsibility of Peabody within their individual property”.
2. The landlord’s repair timescales include:
  1. Next available – a non-urgent repair required to rectify a fault – to be completed within 28 calendar days
  2. Programmed repair – works that require additional time to manufacture, complexity or specialist trade – to be completed within 6 calendar days
  3. Specialist Works – works that fall outside the time frame of a responsive Repair, are complex in nature … – to be completed within 60 calendar days.
The landlord’s Compensation policy states that:
1. “Compensation payments are made when a person has experienced a delay or has incurred additional costs because of a service failure on our part or if we have failed to carry out a service within our published guidelines”.
2. With regards to Time, Trouble and Inconvenience, where there is “Extensive Disruption”, i.e. High impact and high effort to resolve, extended time to complete actions and failure to communicate or follow procedure”, the landlord offers between £301- £400.
3. With regards to Room Loss Allowance, “The assessment as to whether a room or property is unusable will be made by Peabody at the point of the damage and repair request is made”. Furthermore, “For each unusable room, a resident can receive up to the following percentage of the weekly rent as compensation”. For bathrooms residents can receive compensation of up to 25% of the weekly rent after 48 hours. However, “If only partial loss of the room is experienced, the percentage of compensation will reflect this e.g. only the bath in the bathroom was unusable so instead of 25% being provided only 5% will be applicable as the whole room was not unusable”.

Summary of Events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and her property has a wet room which was installed around 9-10 years ago.
A visit on 10 September 2018 by a housing officer identified several repairs:
1. Toilet not flushing properly.
2. Bathroom window not locking properly.
3. Bathroom Tiles falling off.
4. Extractor fan not working.
5. Rainwater entering bathroom due to a blocked drain.
6. Flooring coming off causing leak into property below.
The landlord consequently arranged a surveyor visit for 24 September 2018 that was cancelled by the resident on health grounds. The landlord made an appointment for all the repairs to be carried out 2 October 2018 apart from the extractor fan which was scheduled for 4 October 2018.
The repairs to the toilet and bathroom window were carried out on 2 October 2018 and the resident cancelled a further visit due on 8 October 2018 stating she was waiting for a surveyor visit to inspect for damp before allowing further works.
An internal email sent on 22 October 2018 indicates that resident chased up the surveyor visit stating that contractors had recommended this.
On 30 November 2018, Environmental Health wrote to the landlord stating it had been notified about a defective electric shower and shower waste pump, a defective extractor fan in bathroom, missing bathroom tiles, and a missing hall smoke alarm. Environmental Health asked the landlord to confirm what action it would be taking within the next 21 days. There is no evidence that landlord responded although there is also no evidence that Environmental Health took further action.
On 10 December 2018, the resident raised a formal complaint about the bathroom works. When registering the complaint, the landlord noted that the resident had complaint about “Mould on walls, extractor fan doesn’t turn off you have to do it manually, the shower doesn’t drain properly and can back up and flood the bathroom, drain not fitted properly. EHO also attended and he advised floor not properly waterproofed and tile boards were not used so a section of tiles have come away leaving a gaping hole which is where the wires to the shower are and resident is at serious risk of being electrocuted if she uses the shower”.
On 7 January 2019, the landlord carried out a joint inspection with its contractor and identified works including making good bathroom wall, overhaul whale pump, check drainage, overhaul electric shower, re-seal flooring, disconnect and re-fit pedestal and apply mould wash where necessary.
On 7 February 2019 an electrician attended an appointment but was turned away as he wanted to check the whole property, whilst the resident stated that he should only be checking the bathroom, in particular the supply to the shower and pump. On 19 February 2019 an electrician attended but could not repair the fan as a part was needed and could not repair the smoke alarm as it was too old. At an appointment on 25 February 2019 the contractor measured up so it could order all required materials, reported further works to the landlord and stated that the resident wanted the whole bathroom tiled even though it did not recommend this. Subsequently, the landlord authorised quotes provided by the contractor, checked with the contractor when it would receive materials, and agreed with the resident that works would commence on 13 March 2019.
In the interim an advocate for the resident had written to the landlord on 5 March 2019 stating that she was still without a shower / bath, and that she wanted repairs completed by 26 March 2019 otherwise she would contact this Service.
Works were completed between 13 and 19 March 2019 after which the resident advised that she was happy with the works, according to the landlord’s repair records. The landlord’s repair records confirm that it “renewed the electric shower, supplied and fitted a whale gulper pump, completed an electrical test, renewed the shower cubicle and door, tiled up to ceiling height throughout…” On 1 April 2019 the landlord offered the resident £400 compensation in relation to the time taken to complete the works and the inconvenience caused.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that snagging works were identified and that an appointment for 4 May 2019 was agreed, although it is not clear whether any works were carried out on this date. The records also indicate that after the resident on 21 May 2019 reported that the edges of tiles were sharp and panels were lifting, the landlord carried works on 24 May 2019 (“renew tiled access panel which is not flush against the wall”) to make good. A further snagging appointment was arranged for 28 May 2019. 26 The landlord’s surveyor and contractor then post-inspected the works on 31 May 2019.
It is understood that the resident declined the landlord’s offer of compensation and that she sought independent legal advice in July 2019. On 15 September 2019 the landlord advised Environmental Health that it would be inspecting the resident’s property on 24 September 2019 although a further email noted that the resident cancelled the appointment for medical reasons.
On 29 October 2019 the landlord received a letter from the resident’s advocate dated 3 October 2019. The advocate requested that the landlord pay compensation of one week’s rent for each of the 10 months she was without a shower (£120 x 10 months) plus a gesture of goodwill for other issues not connected with this complaint.
On 18 November 2019 the landlord advised the resident that it would look into her case again and call her to discuss further. The landlord spoke to the resident on 27 November 2019 and wrote to her representative (who had replaced the advocate on 3 December 2019). Noting that the resident had declined the offer of £400 agreed it suggested a meeting so as to find a resolution that was fair. Following the visit, the landlord advised that it would revise the compensation offer.
On 30 December 2019 the landlord sent a Stage 1 complaint response summarising the sequence of events. It noted that its surveyor and contractor had attended on 31 May 2019 and confirmed all works completed. It made a compensation offer of £1,121.76 comprising:
1. £400 – Time and Trouble.
2. £721.76 – 15% reduction in monthly rent for 10 months (September 2018 to May 2019).
On 7 January 2020, the resident’s representative advised that the resident declined its latest offer. He stated that:
1. The resident had no shower for 8 days (2 x 4 days) whilst the showroom panel was replaced and setting.
2. There was dangerous electrics as wiring was housed behind a shower and rotten wiring due to water under the electric in the unit.
3. There was dampness in the shower room causing a smell.
4. The floor had not been waterproofed.
5. There was an ill-fitting drain causing dirty water to pool on the floor.
6. There was no reset box in a passage.
7. The extractor fan had been in disrepair for 4 years until it was repaired.
8. There was rotten pipework that was replaced by the electrical contractor.
On 23 January 2020 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response (although the letter is dated 23 January 2019). It reoffered £1,121.76 noting that it could have reduced amount as it was only able to inspect in December, not from September. It advised:
1. The shower was unusable whilst the panel had to be set, but this would usually take 1-2 days.
2. It had no reports that the electrics were a “death-trap”, and it was difficult to know the context in which the comment was made.
3. It had not received reports of excessive, rotten wiring and it queried why the resident or her advocates or Environmental Health had not mentioned this issue before works commenced.
4. The first time it was aware of a smell was when it was contacted by Environmental Health.
5. It was not necessary to have a reset box in the passageway.
6. If there was an issue with the extractor fan the resident must report it when it became a problem.
7. It reiterated its previous points for the rotten pipework issue.
The representative responded to the landlord raising a number of points including stating that the landlord knew about shower room issues in August 2018.
On 19 February 2020 the landlord responded to the representative clarifying that it accepted that the resident contacted it in August 2019 but that the compensation was not based on when it was contacted, but when it was given access, and that it would not pay compensation for delays caused by the resident’s health issues. With regards to the resident stating that she waited from August 2019 to 7 January 2020 for a surveyor to attend, it noted that the resident cancelled an appointment made for 24 September 2020 and understood she would call again when she was ready; however, she then chose to contact other agencies instead of making a new appointment. The landlord further noted that contractors had attended but not completed works on an occasion as works over a certain threshold needed approval from a surveyor.

Assessment and findings

In investigating this complaint, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to carry out an independent technical assessment of the repair issues raised or determine the condition of a property; rather, it is our role to assess the response of a member landlord when put on notice of such repairs, and how it acted on the evidence it was provided with.
It is also not within the role or expertise of the Ombudsman to determine any causal relationship between any service failures of a landlord and impact to health. Claims that the landlord has been negligent and should be held liable for injury to health should properly be pursued through the landlord’s insurers or court. In determining this complaint, the Ombudsman has considered the reasonable and appropriateness of the landlord’s actions taking into account relevant legal obligations, policies and procedures and good practice, and by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances.
The resident’s Tenancy Agreement confirms that landlord’s statutory obligation “To keep in good repair, the structure and exterior of the Premises including:
1. Drains, gutters and external pipes; …
2. Internal walls, floors and ceilings… and

“To keep in good repair and proper working order any installations provided by the Trust… including:

Basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes;
Electric wiring…”

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms her responsibility to “report promptly to the Trust any disrepair or defect for which the Trust is responsible in the structure or exterior of the property or in any installation therein…”.
In this case, it is evident from the repairs raised in September 2018 and not disputed by the parties that the landlord became aware of issues in the resident’s wet room in August / September 2018 although it is not evident that she reported her shower was unsafe at this time.
It transpired that only the repairs to the toilet and bathroom window could be immediately completed and a surveyor visit was raised. This in itself was not unreasonable as where a repair issue is more complex or extensive that originally diagnosed, an inspection by a surveyor with the expertise and authority to make decisions on repairs is required to determine the next steps. However, the landlord then had a responsibility to maintain oversight of the repair and specify the necessary works so as to ensure that it met its target for completing the works within 60 calendar days. Regardless of the cancelled appointment on 24 September 2018 and the landlord’s understanding that the resident would contact it, this responsibility remained; however, the landlord was not proactive which caused a delay in the inspection which did not occur until January 2019. In fact, it was only after the landlord had received correspondence from Environmental Health and the resident’s complaint that it made the appointment which indicates that it lost oversight over the progress of the repairs raised.
Following the inspection of 7 January 2019, the landlord re-raised works orders which included overhauling the shower and pump. Although a further inspection carried out on 25 February 2019 added to the length of time for the repairs to be completed, the landlord’s records indicate that the repairs were substantially completed by 20 March 2019 with the shower in proper working order. It is not clear when the further snagging works were first identified or reported by the resident, but the inspection of 31 May 2019 confirms that they were all completed by this date. Through carrying out a joint inspection with a surveyor its contractor the landlord took appropriate steps to ensure that all works were satisfactory completed.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them. Therefore, when investigating complaints, the Ombudsman carefully considers whether and how a complainant has been adversely affected by the actions or omissions of their landlord, and what remedies are required to put right the service failure. 
Whilst the delay to the repairs would be understandably distressing for the resident, it is important to note that the landlord, as a provider of social housing, has an obligation to make the most efficient use of its limited resources and to carefully manage its expenditure. As a result, it is reasonable for it to have such policies and procedures in place and to apply them consistently in response to significant financial claims. The provisions of a landlord’s Compensation Procedure reflects redress for service failure and therefore does not offer damages in the way that a court might.
In this case the landlord followed its Compensation Policy by offering a rent reduction for the period September 2018 to May 2019. It was reasonable that the landlord made an offer based on this period as this reflected the period of when it first raised repairs to when all repairs were confirmed as satisfactorily completed. It was also reasonable that the landlord compensated for the full period to May 2019 given that the facilities in the wet room were essentially in good working order by the end of March 2019, and the need to arrange mutually convenient appointments added to the overall delay.
Whilst the Compensation Policy allowed the landlord to offer up to 25% of rent for loss use of a bathroom it was reasonable that it offered 15% reduction given that the no evidence that the toilet (following the initial repair to the flush) and sink were not in working order.
As well as compensating for the delay to repairs the landlord acknowledged the resident’s Time, Trouble and Inconvenience by offering compensation on this basis too. Its offer of £400 was the highest award under its compensation policy, and therefore was made on a clear and reasonable basis. In specifically acknowledging the resident’s distress and inconvenience the landlord took further steps to resolve the complaint and preserving the landlord-tenant relationship proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
Taken altogether, and considering all the circumstance of the case, whilst the landlord delayed in completing repairs to the resident’s it has offered compensation that was in line with its Compensation Policy and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. It has therefore offered reasonable redress that has satisfactorily resolved the complaint. This finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the bathroom issue, the landlord’s handling or impact on the resident was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were considerable failings by the landlord, which its compensation offer acknowledges and compensates for in line with the Ombudsman’s approach. Whilst this is the case, this investigation has made recommendations in recognition of acknowledged and/or identified service issues in respect of this aspect.

Determination (decision)

Paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “At any time, the Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’”.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress that has satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Reasons

Taken altogether, and considering all the circumstance of the case, whilst the landlord delayed in completing repairs to the resident’s it has offered compensation that was in line with its Compensation Policy and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. It has therefore offered reasonable redress that has satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Recommendations

Since this determination is contingent on the landlord’s offer of compensation, it should pay the resident the £1,121.76 that was offered within the complaints procedure, if it has not done so already.
The landlord identifies the reasons for the delay in arranging the initial inspection of the resident’s property. The landlord should then confirm what action it will take to prevent such delays from happening again.
The landlord is requested to confirm its intention in respect of the above recommendations within the next four weeks.