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

Peabody Trust (202103149)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103149

Peabody Trust

16 May 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 resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak in the property and its complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The property is a one bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has lived at the property since 2004.
  2. The resident reported a possible leak to the landlord in November 2020. On 17 November 2020 a contractor attended the property and located a leak in the communal soil pipe. A repair was booked in for 15 December 2020 but was cancelled because of a health emergency. On 21 December 2020 a contractor attended and undertook some works. The repairs were completed on 26 January 2021.
  3. On 1 March 2021 the landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident. The landlord stated that it had looked through the notes and there was no reference to the gas being switched off. The landlord therefore stated that it would take no further action regarding the resident’s complaint about loss of heating and hot water. The landlord acknowledged that the repairs should have been completed sooner and offered the resident compensation of £150 for time, trouble and inconvenience and £10 for the missed appointment on 15 December 2020.
  4. On 13 March 2021 the resident advised the landlord that he was unhappy with the stage one complaint response and asked that the matter be escalated.
  5. On 15 April 2022 the landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident. The landlord stated that it had considered the resident’s submission that the compensation offered by it at stage one was insufficient. It stated that it remained of the view that it would not offer compensation for no heating or hot water as there was no evidence that the boiler did not work. It apologised for the delay in repairing the stack pipe and restated its stage one explanation of the impact of the pandemic on the availability of contractors. It also noted that some delay would not be unexpected because elements of the repair needed time to dry out before remedial work could be done. It acknowledged the complaint handling delays. It stated that £160 compensation for delays was in line with its compensation policy and it offered £50 compensation for complaints handling failures.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

  1. The resident is unhappy because his view is that the repairs took too long (71 days) and he was without heating and hot water during this period. The resident states that this had an impact on health and well being, family time and loss of earnings. The residents submits that the kitchen was “out of use for a long time” because a flies’ nest developed and exposed waste was leaking into the kitchen. The resident states that there was a missed appointment. He states that the gas was disconnected because the meter had to be removed from the kitchen which the contractors stated would not be done until the soil stack work was completed. The resident also states that he was required to take six days of unpaid leave from work for the contractor appointments.
  2. The Ombudsman starts from the position that, in accordance with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is expected to attend to and undertaken repairs within a reasonable timeframe. What is reasonable may depend on the nature of the problem and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman has also taken into account the landlord’s Repairs Policy. This sets out the different response times for different types of repair, including 28 calendar days for a ”next available … non-urgent repair” and 60 calendar days for “specialist works”.
  3. The landlord has acknowledged that there were delays in repairs. Its explanation for the delays is the impact of the pandemic on the availability of contractors. It also noted that there was a period of drying out required before “making good” work could be undertaken.
  4. The landlord’s Stage One complaint response states that the leak was first reported on 16 November 2020 and repaired on 26 January 2021. The resident has stated that he first reported the problem in September 2020. The Ombudsman has reviewed the records submitted by the landlord. These record a repair note dated 12 November 2020 about a “reported containable leak under whb from piping” and attendance at the property on 16 November 2020, when the cause of the leak was determined. On 24 November 2020 the quote for the repair was approved internally and it was booked in on 8 December 2020. The 15 December 2020 booking was unfortunately cancelled due to a health emergency. This was rebooked for 21 December 2020. The repair appears to have been finally completed with a second visit on 26 January 2021.
  5. From the evidence available, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord was on reasonable notice that it needed to attend to the repair from 12 November 2020. On this basis, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s first attendance at the property on 16 November 2020 was within a reasonable timeframe. It is unfortunate that the engineer appointment booked for 15 December 2020 was cancelled due to health issues. The Ombudsman acknowledges the impact that the pandemic had on the landlord’s resourcing availability. The Ombudsman also acknowledges that a period of time was unavoidably required for drying after the first stage of works was completed on 21 December 2021 before it could be finalised in January. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman finds that the time taken by the landlord to undertake the repairs was unreasonable – there is no evidence that the landlord explored different options to potentially hasten the repair work and the landlord exceeded its expected timeframe for a non urgent repair .
  6. The Ombudsman therefore considers that it was appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident some compensation. It has offered the resident £150 for time and trouble and £10 for the missed appointment. The Ombudsman has considered whether this is reasonable.
  7. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided. Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
  8. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has sought compensation for loss of earnings as well as distress and inconvenience. Clause 4.3 of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that the landlord does not pay compensation for loss of earnings. This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s approach that, in general, it would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a complainant for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. Whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a complainant reimbursement for loss of earnings for routine appointments. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this is a reasonable clause which the landlord is entitled to rely on in this case. The Ombudsman has therefore not taken loss of earnings into account in considering what a reasonable amount of compensation is.
  9. The resident has submitted that the kitchen was uninhabitable throughout the period due to flies and an odour from the leak. The Ombudsman notes that the repair notes from the January repair booking refer to the use of a “fly removal spray”. However, there is no evidence that the kitchen was uninhabitable. The Ombudsman also notes that there is no evidence that the resident sought to be decanted from the property during the period. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has stated that he was told to “add bleach” to stop “bugs/maggots” from forming. It is reasonable to expect the resident to take some preventative action and the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence that the resident took the recommended action to minimise the risk of the problem occurring but it was ineffective, or that he raised the issue as an emergency with the landlord. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident suffered distress and inconvenience due to the repair delays. However, the Ombudsman concludes that, on the basis of the evidence provided, it is not reasonable to find that the kitchen was unusable throughout the period.
  10. The resident has also stated that the boiler was switched off for the entire duration of the repair period. He states that he was therefore without heating and hot water for the entire duration. He states that this was due to coordination with works that were being done to relocate the gas meter for the property being undertaken at the same time. The landlord has stated that it has investigated this and found no reference to the boiler being switched off. The Ombudsman notes that there is no reference to the boiler being switched off in any of the repair notes that have been provided. The Ombudsman is not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence that the boiler was switched off for the repairs period.
  11. It appears that the work on the boiler was being undertaken on the gas meter was being undertaken by a different department of the landlord. The Ombudsman considers, that in any case, even if the boiler was switched off, there is no evidence that the resident drew this to the attention of the landlord as an issue at the time. The landlord cannot reasonably be expected to remedy an issue which the resident has not taken reasonable steps to draw its attention to. The Ombudsman therefore does not consider that the landlord should pay compensation for loss of heating or hot water.
  12. The Housing Ombudsman Guidance on remedies sets out that awards of £50 to £250 are appropriate where there has been a service failure which has had an impact on the resident but this was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s offer of a total of £160 compensation in relation to the repairs is reasonable.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has also acknowledged that there were some complaints handling failures. In its stage two response it noted that there were delays in the resident’s complaint being dealt with at stage one. It offered the resident £50 compensation for this.
  2. The evidence indicates that the resident made his complaint to the landlord on 6 January 2021 and the landlord gave its stage one complaint response on 1 March 2021. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this was an unreasonable delay. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord otherwise reasonably dealt with the complaint. Therefore, and taking all the circumstances into account, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the offer of £50 compensation for complaints handling which the landlord has made is reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. The Ombudsman finds that in accordance with section 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been a service failure by the landlord with respect to its handling of repairs, however the landlord has offered reasonable redress in the Ombudsman’s opinion.
  2. The Ombudsman finds that in accordance with section 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been a service failure by the landlord with respect to its complaints handling, however the landlord has offered reasonable redress in the Ombudsman’s opinion.

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman considers that the time taken to complete the repairs was unreasonable. The Ombudsman is not persuaded that it can be reasonably concluded on the basis of the evidence provided that the kitchen was uninhabitable or that the gas was disconnected for the duration of the repairs. However, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident suffered distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the £160 offered by the landlord is a reasonable amount of compensation in the circumstances.
  2. The Ombudsman finds that there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord providing a stage one complaint response. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the £50 compensation offered by the landlord is reasonable redress for this.