Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Peabody Trust (202111521)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111521

Peabody Trust

18 July 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the installation of a trellis on the resident’s fence.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.
  3. This is because, under paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, this Service will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. As there is no evidence that a complaint about the dissatisfaction that the resident expressed with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB from her neighbour has completed its complaints procedure yet, this Service is unable to investigate this aspect of her complaint at this time.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house with a garden.
  2. On 27 August 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord via this Service, stating that her neighbour had installed an “unsightly” picket fence between their front gardens with weight stacked on this, which she considered to be a “safety hazard.” As a resolution, she wanted it to remove the weight from the fence. The landlord’s subsequent stage one complaint response of 30 September 2021 apologised for the delayed response, and it confirmed with her that, as a resolution, it would install a trellis on her side of the fence and provide her with samples that she could choose from before work was carried out. It gave her a timescale for this of two to four weeks and, for the delay in its stage one response, offered her £30 compensation.
  3. On 22 and 28 October 2021, the resident reported that, after the contractor had previously measured the trellis that had already been designed and awaited approval to install this, the landlord had not contacted her to update her on the installation of the trellis, nor had she been shown the samples that it had promised her for this. She was unhappy that she had to repeatedly chase it for an update with regard to when the trellis would be installed, for which she had not been given a further timeframe, as the stress was taking its “toll” on her. The resident therefore requested that her complaint was escalated to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  4. The landlord explained to the resident on 26 October 2021 that it was looking at other options to the contractor’s choice of an expensive trellis and, on 29 October 2021, it apologised for the delay in this but it noted that it had “barely been four weeks.” It also explained that she had seen no samples of the trellis because the cost of this had not yet been agreed, inviting her to suggest trellis designs to it, which it had agreed to fit for cosmetic reasons as it did not find that the fence was falling. On 11 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord for an update, as the trellis was still not installed on her fence, and she was experiencing distress and inconvenience from having to chase it for an update.
  5. Following the landlord’s request for a ten-working-day extension, its final stage complaint response was issued to the resident on 17 December 2021. It apologised for the delayed response that had exceeded the extension, and it explained to her that, since the trellis was classed as an improvement, this was not subject to responsive repair timescales. The landlord stated that there were delays to installing the trellis due to the cost of the work being disputed and the design needing to be agreed with the contractor before this could start, and that the Covid-19 pandemic made it difficult for it to keep consistent staff levels to order the parts required for the trellis.
  6. The landlord further explained that much of the delay in installing the trellis was outside of its control, which might take further weeks to complete. It provided her with a new timescale for this of eight weeks, which factored in the festive period and most of its staff being on leave, and it offered her £145 total compensation, which was broken down as £30 for its stage one complaint handling, £40 for its final stage complaint handling, and £75 for her time and trouble.
  7. On 21 January 2022, the resident reported to this Service that she had not yet received the £145 compensation awarded by the landlord, and that the trellis was still not installed on her side of the fence. On 6 April 2022 it reported that the trellis was installed to her specifications. The resident was dissatisfied with the frequency of the delays in the installation of her trellis, however, and the lack of contact from the landlord, so she raised a complaint with this Service to investigate this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the installation of a trellis on the resident’s fence

  1. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it has a responsibility to complete non-urgent responsive repairs to garden fences within 28 calendar days and specialist works that fall outside of this timeframe within 60 calendar days. As the trellis was considered as an improvement, it explained to the resident that this was not subject to the timescales in the policy. However, the fact that the landlord agreed timescales for the trellis of up to four and eight weeks on 30 September and 17 December 2021, respectively, meant that this improvement should have been completed in a timely manner, with clear communication as to when this would take place, and if there were any delays to these timescales.
  2. The landlord informed the resident in its stage one complaint response that the trellis would be installed within two to four weeks, giving her a reasonable expectation that this would be installed within that timescale. It nevertheless failed to meet her expectation of this, as the timescale was not met. The landlord instead explained that the trellis was delayed due to factors including it looking at other options because of the contractor’s choice of an expensive trellis, the resulting dispute over the cost and design of this, and the Covid-19 pandemic making it difficult to keep consistent staff levels to order parts for the trellis.
  3. While it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to have prevented delays to the installation of the trellis that had been caused by external factors beyond its control, such as the pandemic, it should have acted appropriately by regularly contacting the resident in a timely manner about any delays. This would have prevented her from incurring unnecessary distress, inconvenience, time and trouble by waiting for and then chasing it for updates on this. To learn from the outcome of the resident’s case, the landlord has therefore been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs in relation to communications for lengthy and delayed works in light of the resident’s case.
  4. Furthermore, in its final stage complaint response, the landlord provided the resident with a new timescale to install the trellis within eight weeks. It was appropriate for it to provide her with a new timescale for it to do so that considered potential delays to this from most of its staff being on leave in the festive period. However, given the landlord’s previous delays and the fact that it had been almost three weeks since its previous timescale for this had expired, it would have been helpful if it had given her a specific date for when the trellis would be installed, if possible.
  5. Moreover, as the landlord had agreed to a new timescale of eight weeks for it to install the resident’s trellis after it had already delayed this, it had a responsibility to ensure that the new timescale was followed. It nevertheless exceeded this timescale by almost another eight weeks, as it reported on 6 April 2022 that the trellis was now installed. It is therefore concerning that the landlord repeatedly failed to meet the resident’s expectations by not installing the trellis within the timescales that it had agreed with her. To prevent similar incidents from occurring again in the future, it has been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs on making and keeping appointments for lengthy and delayed works.
  6. The compensation offered by the landlord to the resident of £75 for her time and trouble from its delayed works was not proportionate to fully put things right for her, as this did not reflect all of the length of the delay in installing the trellis. The effect on her of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble that she also reported that she incurred from repeatedly chasing it for updates, and from the delay, was additionally not fully recognised by the level of compensation that it awarded her. The landlord also failed to identify its errors in communication in the resident’s case, and it failed to take proactive measures to prevent this from happening again.
  7. Therefore, the compensation awarded to the resident in light of the landlord’s handling of the installation of a trellis on her fence ought to have been in line with its compensation policy’s recommendation for disruption that had an impact on causing her time, trouble and inconvenience that took a high effort to resolve. To reflect the impact that these factors had on her, it has been ordered below to increase the compensation awarded to her by £155 to give a total of £300, including the £145 compensation that it previously offered her if she has not received this already, in line the policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure states that it aims to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days, and to final stage complaints, within 15 working days. A ten-working-day extension is permitted for both stages, but it must contact the resident to explain the reasons for this, and to provide her with a new timescale. The landlord did not follow its policy and procedure in respect of the resident’s stage one complaint of 27 August 2021, however, as it responded to this on 30 September 2021, which was 13 working days later than its ten-working-day timescale without seeking an extension.
  2. The landlord also responded to the resident’s final stage complaint of 28 October 2021 later than the complaints policy and procedure’s 15-working-day timescale on 17 December 2021, which exceeded this timescale and the ten-working-day extension that it informed her of by 11working days. Its complaint responses to her were therefore a total of 24 working days later than the timescales in its policy and procedure.
  3. Nevertheless, the landlord apologised for its complaint handling delays and offered the resident a total of £70 compensation for these, which was appropriate. This is because this was in line with its compensation policy’s recommendation for it to recognise failures to follow its complaints policy and procedure resulting in inconvenience and effort to progress a complaint with up to £75 compensation. However, to learn from the outcome of the resident’s case, the landlord has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy and procedure to seek to prevent its complaint handling delays from occurring again.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the installation of a trellis on the resident’s fence.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Order and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 total compensation within four weeks in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failures in its handling of the installation of a trellis on her fence, which includes the £145 that it previously awarded her, if she has not received this already.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to communications and making and keeping appointments for lengthy and delayed works, and consider and implement additional training and improvements for them on this in light of the resident’s case.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy and procedure to seek to prevent its complaint handling delays from occurring again.
  3. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order and whether it will follow the above recommendations.