Peabody Trust (202101617)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101617

Peabody Trust

27 February 2023

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let.
2. The resident’s request for an eye level oven in her kitchen.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 9 March 2021. The property is a fourth floor, one bedroom flat in a multi-story block. The landlord has advised that it had impaired mobility recorded for the resident but did not have any specific details.
On 31 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to log a formal complaint. A copy of the resident’s original complaint has not been seen by this service.
The landlord’s surveyor visited the property with the resident and on 9 April 2021 the surveyor reported that:
1. There was no damp but there were old dirt stains on the plastic skirting which needed to be cleaned or painted over.
2. The tenant had identified some other areas she was concerned about which need to be resolved including:
  1. Water from a leaking rain water pipe on balcony was or had been soaking through the brickwork where the render had come off the wall and damaged the inside wall of the lounge, which needed to be repaired. The old lino had also lifted and needed to be taken up.
  2. There were about six tiles loose in the kitchen where an old water leak from the flat above has got behind them, the plinths need replacing and re-siliconing, the kitchen needed adapting and there was an overflow pipe from the boiler that went into the bathroom sink.
On 16 April 2021, the voids team referred the resident to the rehousing team as the property needed adaptations for her to be able to move in. The rehousing team spoke to the resident on 14 and 16 April 2021 and advised her to register on their choice based lettings scheme and that she would need to complete a medical assessment to increase her banding to a B1 in order to improve her chances of being rehoused, which they advised could take many months.
On 21 April 2021, the resident contacted this service about her complaint to the landlord. The resident explained that because of covid related restrictions she was not offered a physical viewing of the property and that she accepted it in the condition she thought it was in based on a virtual viewing. She was unable to move into the property at the start of her tenancy due to it not being in the condition presented in the virtual viewing when it was let to her, a leak from the balcony which had damaged the flooring and walls. The resident also referred to damp and mould, broken and missing kitchen wall tiles and her request that the landlord create a space in her kitchen for an eye level oven. The resident also said that the landlord was seeking to recover rent arrears for the period where she had been unable to move into the property. This service contact the landlord the same day to chase its complaint response.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 22 April 2021 and followed up with an email the same day apologising for the disruptive start to her tenancy. The landlord confirmed that it had been agreed that a visit would be carried out the following day to assess what materials were needed to carry out the works, which would commence the following week. The landlord also said that it would adjust the rent account so that the resident was not liable for any rent until the works were finished, which it said should be the end of the following week. The landlord also said that it would cover any reasonable out of pocket expenses, such as travel to and from the property and utility payments.
On 10 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she had visited the property as the previously agreed works had commenced, however, more repairs issues had become apparent and the property was uninhabitable. The resident said that she had had no response regarding a reduction in her rent and that she had been contacted by the income team advising her that she was nearly £2,000 in arrears and that they had no record of any agreement with regards to her rent.
The landlord responded to the resident the same day advising that the works to her property were not yet completed, but were due for completion that week, and once finished a surveyor would inspect the works. The landlord also said that it had spoken to the Income team that day and had explained the situation regarding her rent.
In an internal email of 14 May 2021, the landlord advised that there was still another 1.5 days work to complete and that it had arranged to meet the resident on site on 17 May 2021 to cut the kitchen worktop for the hob, which the resident was bringing with her, and to go through what had been done. The landlord said that there was likely to be a few extra bits added to the works and the property was to be decorated.
By 21 May 2021, the works were still ongoing and it had been decided that a new kitchen would be fitted.
On 11 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord referring to the previously agreed arrangement with regards to the eye level oven not being possible due to safety concerns. The landlord responded on 18 June 2021, explaining that it had been trying to adapt the property to meet resident’s needs in terms of what she had said she needed in terms of mobility. Despite its best efforts this had not proved possible. Currently it was in the process of putting the property back to a general needs lettable standard, which would take another week or two. The landlord suggested the resident contact her Occupational Therapist (OT) to arrange for them to visit her and to advise what was needed and what was possible. If the OT advised that the resident had a need, that the property could not be adapted to meet, then this would be taken into account by its rehousing team. As discussed previously if the resident had any out of pocket expenses such as the utility bills, and expenses traveling to and from the property the landlord asked that she let it know. The landlord said that it would be in touch once the works were finished.
On 6 July 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to say that a post inspection had been carried out that day and that the resident could now move in. The landlord asked the resident to let it know if there were any problems, confirmed that there was an order out to address the leak from the balcony, and said that it would speak to the income team about the resident’s rent.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 7 July 2021. The landlord confirmed that the property was offered to the resident as a general needs property which incorporated a kitchen with an opening for a standard cooker. The landlord acknowledged that due to COVID restrictions the resident had viewed the property via video only and that when she accepted the property advised that her mobility issues meant that she needed an eye level oven. The landlord went on to say that:
1. Its usual process would be to have advised the resident to contact her OT from the outset, however, given that it was aware of delays with OTs due to COVID, it had tried its best to meet the resident’s needs and had worked with her to try and remodel the kitchen. The landlord said that this included bringing in an external kitchen planner, however, the only option for incorporating an eye level over was to include an under-counter fridge, which the resident rejected.
2. It would not charge the resident rent for the period between the tenancy start date and the end of that week and that it would also cover any receipted travel expenses the resident had incurred in travelling to and from the property to meet with its surveyor.
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated on 20 July 2021. A copy of the resident’s escalation request has not been seen by this service. However, this service has had sight of email correspondence between the resident and the landlord of the same date regarding the resident having no access to the property because the locks had been changed, and of the landlord advising her the same day that they were in a key safe outside the property, for which it provided the resident with a code.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 26 July 2021 and explained that it was currently unable to allocate due to number of reviews it was dealing with but it would be allocated within the next 7 days, and that it would confirm this. On 6 July 2021, the landlord confirmed that it would provide the resident with its stage two response by 27 August 2021.
On 11 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord advising that when she went to the flat the eye level oven had not been installed and the balcony was still leaking, was in a horrible state and smelt very unpleasant.
On 27 August 2021, the landlord raised a job to check the downpipe from balcony of the flat above the resident’s property.
On 30 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord requesting an update. The resident said that she had tried to call the landlord, and left voicemail messages, to chase its stage two response but had had heard nothing. The resident said that this had been going on since the beginning of March 2021 and was causing her great distress.
The landlord issued its final response on 2 September 2021. The landlord again acknowledged that when the resident was offered the property she had only seen it virtually, due to COVID restrictions and that the resident had advised that she would need the kitchen to be redesigned due to her vulnerabilities. The landlord also acknowledge that moving had been a challenging time for the resident and that it was sorry her experience was not a positive one.
1. With regards to the condition of the property when let, the landlord said that:
  1. The property was managed by the voids team and brought to the lettable standard before it was handed over. After the internal works were completed the resident was left waiting for keys because she had not been told the access number for the key safe. It became aware of the issue with the key’s location when it received the resident’s email about not having the access code. It promptly contacted the relevant team to retrieve the code which it then sent to the resident by email.
  2. It noted that the balcony was still leaking and confirmed that a job had been being raised to investigate the balcony of the property above, as the water appeared to be coming from the downpipe. The landlord acknowledged that there did not appear to be a specific reason for the delay in raising these works and it apologised that the exterior works to the balcony were not addressed in a more timely manner. Once the repairs to the balcony had been completed, the landlord said that it would be deep cleaned.
  3. It believed the gesture of waiving the resident’s rent between 9 March 2021 (tenancy start date) and the week ending 9 July 2021 (when the internal works were completed) was reasonable recognition of the delays the resident had experienced and for her only having seen the property via video. The landlord confirmed that an amended had been made to the resident’s rent account totalling £2,836.54.
  4. In respect of any continuation of the resident’s monthly rent being waived; whilst it understood the resident’s concerns about the balcony repairs, it did not believe this meant the resident could not move into the property.
  5. It also confirmed that it would honour the resident costs of receipted travel expenses and, having looked through the resident’s receipts, would contribute 50% of the petrol costs of £35 and the cab costs of £108 in full, a total of £143.
  6. The landlord also offered the resident a further £200 compensation, made up of:

(1) £50 in recognition of there being some confusion and lack of communication, for which it also sincerely apologised.

(2) £100 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience.

(3) £50 for its delayed stage two complaint response.

With regards to the resident’s request for an eye level oven, the landlord said that:
1. Its Voids team had tried to accommodate her request for an eye level oven within the kitchen design however this was declined by the resident as it would have meant the fridge would have to have been placed under the work surface.
2. As the resident did not accept the design, the kitchen was reverted back to a general needs kitchen.
3. To consider any further adaptations based on the mobility issues the resident described, an assessment would have to be undertaken by Occupational Therapy.

The resident responded to the landlord the same day. The resident said that she had never refused the installation of the eye level oven and that, whilst the landlord had stated that the redesign would not enable her to have an upright fridge, it was discussed with the surveyor that an upright fridge could be put in her living room. The resident said that after she had agreed this with the surveyor the landlord made no contact with her until she was emailed to let her know the work was complete. She then went to the property to see the works but was unable to gain access as the locks had been changed without her knowledge. When she gained access, she noted that the eye level oven had not been installed and the balcony repairs had not been completed.
On 22 September 2021, the landlord responded to the resident. The landlord said that it had attempted to meet her request by engaging an external kitchen contractor to make use of the limited space in the kitchen in order to accommodate the eye level oven. As this design was not acceptable to the resident, the kitchen was reverted back to its original design. In order to provide any special adaptations, the landlord restated that the resident would need to go through the OT process, where her medical issues can be recorded. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was not informed that the locks had been changed, for which it apologised and confirmed that its compensation included an element for the time and trouble for this disruption. The landlord said that it was sorry this issue had been so upsetting, and offered to refer the resident to its Tenant and Family Support Team as they may be able to provide further support and information. The landlord asked that the resident let it know she would like to be referred.
On 19 November 2021, the landlord raised a job to trace and rectify leak affecting resident’s balcony as it was causing damage to balcony and peeling paint. The landlord’s records note that this job was completed on 12 April 2022.
On 14 April 2022, the resident’s OT wrote to the landlord to advise that they had visited the resident that day. The OT said that due to her medical condition, the resident experienced a lot of pain when bending and would benefit from an oven at a height to be agreed by the resident. The OT asked that the landlord look into this.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes’.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.

The condition of the property when let.

Looking at the facts of the case, and the available evidence, the landlord was acting in accordance with its processes at that time to restrict property viewings due to the COVID restrictions. However, it is accepted that taking on a tenancy without a full inspection of the property is not ideal.
Regardless of how the tenant may have viewed the property, when the property was let, the landlord would be expected to carry out a void inspection to determine whether any works are needed to bring the property up to its lettable standard. The landlord would then be expected to provide the resident with details of any outstanding works, how and when it proposes to complete them and to carry out any necessary repairs within a reasonable timescale.
This service has not been provided with a copy of the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord of 31 March 2021. However, shortly afterwards on 9 April 2021, the landlord visited the property with the resident and established that whilst there was no damp or mould in the property there were a number of outstanding works that needed to be addressed. These included a leaking rain water pipe on the balcony which had damaged the inside wall of the lounge, that the old lino had also lifted and needed to be taken up, that there were six loose tiles in the kitchen following a historic leak from the flat above, that plinths needed replacing and re-siliconing and there was an overflow pipe from the boiler that went into the bathroom sink. This service has not been provided with a copy of the void inspection, however, these are items that the landlord would have been expected to have identified during its voids inspection and addressed, which it is evident that it had not.
The resident’s request for an eye level oven was also raised on or around the same time. This has been considered separately, however it is acknowledged that the kitchen works added to the delay in the property being ready for the resident to move in.
The Ombudsman expects landlord to handle repairs, for which it is responsible, appropriately by completing them in a reasonable time and providing regular communication and updates to the resident about the works. Where repair work is overdue, residents should receive regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for delay and the expected date of completion.
The landlord’s repairs policy refers to four different types of repair:
1. Emergency, to avoid an immediate danger to personal health or safety or serious damage to property, which is to be repaired or made safe within 24 hours.
2. Fast response, which related to its care and support or vulnerable residents and in the case of emergencies requires the Contractor to attend within 2 – 4 hours dependent on the allocate contractor.
3. Routine, which are to be completed within a maximum of 35 days.
4. Communal, which the landlord aims to carry out proactively, to the time scales set out above and to a good standard.
Given the nature of the repairs required to the property, the landlord would be expected to complete those repairs within a maximum of 35 days, no later than 14 May 2021. However, as the landlord accepted that the resident was unable to move into the property until the internal works had been completed, it would have been appropriate for it to consider whether those works could be prioritised.
On 22 April 2021, the landlord confirmed that it would look at further issues raised by the resident including mould in the bedroom, kitchen and front room and the fitting of a shower hose to the mixer taps. The landlord also said that the resident would not be liable for any rent until the works were finished, which at that time it said would be the end of the following week. Given that there is no evidence of any dispute that the resident was unable to move in until the repairs were completed, the landlord’s offer to waive the resident’s rent until these were completed was appropriate.
It was then not until 6 July 2021, that the landlord emailed the resident to say that a post inspection had been carried out and she could not move in. This was 53 days later than the maximum 35 day target time given in the landlord’s repairs policy. It is recognised that the issues with the resident’s kitchen, which as explained previously have been considered separately, added this delay. However, for the resident only to be advised that her property was ready for her to move into four months after her tenancy commenced was not reasonable and understandably caused her significant and unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to honour its agreement to waive the residents rent between her tenancy start date, 9 March 2021, and the week ending 9 July 2021. In its final response the landlord confirmed that an adjustment totalling £2,836.54 had been made. The resident has challenged this amount stating that the landlord should have continued to waive her rent until the repair to the balcony and the installation of the eye level oven had been completed. Whilst the resident’s request is understandable, as the repair to the balcony did not render the property uninhabitable and as the installation of the eye level was an adaption and not a repair that the landlord would have been obliged to complete before she moved it, it was reasonable for it to end the waiver of rent on 9 July 2021.
In its final response the landlord also agreed to cover resident costs of receipted travel expenses, including 50% of the petrol costs of £35 and the cab costs of £108 in full, a total of £143. This was an appropriate offer for the landlord to make given the additional cost and inconvenience to the resident of having to travel to the property whilst the repairs were being addressed.
It is not clear from the records provided by the landlord exactly what repairs were completed between 9 April and 6 July 2021, however, the only outstanding concerns raised by the resident after 6 July 2021 were that when she attended the property on 20 July 2021 the locks had been changed and that the balcony was still leaking.
Whilst the landlord did acknowledge in its final response the inconvenience to the resident of the locks having been changed, it did not offer an apology for this until its response to the resident’s follow up correspondence, nor did it clear explain until that later response that the compensation offered for time and trouble included compensation for this.
With regards to the balcony works. It is acknowledged that as external repairs, these would not have prevented the resident from moving into the property. However, as these were not completed by the week ending 9 July 2021, the date used to calculate the level of rent the landlord had agreed to waive, it would have been reasonable for the landlord in its final response to have offered further compensation to the resident for the continued delay, given as by that time a further two months had passed and the balcony works had still not been completed. That it did not do so was a failure by the landlord, particularly as it had acknowledged that there did not appear to be a specific reason for the delay in raising these works.
In its final response, the landlord also said that a job had been raised to investigate the balcony of the property above. This job record has not been seen by this service however, this service has seen that a further job to trace and rectify the leak affecting the resident’s balcony was raised but this was not until 19 November 2021, over two months after the landlord’s final response. The balcony works were then not completed until 12 April 2022, one year after they were first identified.
Whilst the balcony works did not impact the resident’s ability to live in the property nor did they impact the internal structure of the property, this was nevertheless a significant amount of time for the resident to have to wait for the repairs to be completed. It is also evident that the landlord had not learnt from its findings in its final response as it had again failed to address the balcony issues in a timely manner. A finding of service failure with regards specifically to the balcony repairs has therefore been made for which the landlord has been ordered to both apologise to the resident and pay her a further £200. This being in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where the landlord has acknowledged failings but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an eye level oven in her kitchen.

The Equality Act 2010 states that landlords have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for residents who are at a substantial disadvantage compared to people who don’t have a disability. The reasonable adjustments duty only covers certain changes to the home. The duty does not require the landlord to alter or remove ‘physical features’, for example structural changes, removing walls, widening doorways or installing permanent ramps.
The information provided on the landlord’s web page covers two types of adaptations:
1. Minor, such as grabs rails and lever taps, which it states can be arranged within a relatively short time-frame.
2. Major adaptations, such as adapted kitchen, for which referrals must come via the local authority occupational therapy team, and which it states can take a considerable amount of time to complete.
The property was let as a general needs property and therefore provided a space for a cooker in the kitchen. It is acknowledged that the resident had only virtually viewed the property before accepting it and so may not have been fully aware at that time that the kitchen may not suitable for her needs.
When the resident accepted the property, she advised the landlord’s voids team that due to a disability she would need space to be provided in the kitchen to accommodate an eye level oven.
Initially the voids team contacted the landlord’s rehousing team to advise that the property needed adaptations for the resident to move in, and the rehousing team spoke to the resident to advise on the steps she would need to take in order to be rehoused. However, following the resident’s complaint, which has not been seen by this service, the landlord agreed to look into whether it would be able to make the changes required to the kitchen.
Given that the adaptation requested by the resident would require changes to be made to the layout of the kitchen, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have advised the resident at that time that she would first need to arrange for a referral to be made by a local authority occupational therapist. However, in this instance, as the landlord was aware that due to COVID there were long delays in having an assessment and subsequent referral completed, it sought to address the resident’s request itself. Whilst it was not obliged to do so, this approach evidences that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and wanted to resolve the issue for the resident at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord initially sought to remodel the kitchen itself, and on 17 May 2021 the resident bought a hob to the property for the worktop to be cut to accommodate it. However, by 21 May 2021 it had been decided that a new kitchen would be fitted. The landlord arranged for an external kitchen planner to attend but they too were unable to find a solution that would allow for the inclusion of the eye level oven. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 18 June 2021 explaining this and suggested that she contact her OT to arrange for them to do an assess and to advise on what was needed.
There is difference of opinion between the resident and the landlord as to why no suitable resolution was found. The landlord has said that the reason they had been unable to provide a resolution was that the only option was to include an under-counter fridge, which the resident refused. The resident has rejected this saying that she had never refused an under counter fridge and had also discussed having an upright fridge in her living room. As there is no evidence to support either the landlord’s or resident’s position it would not be appropriate for this service to take a view as to which position was accurate.
What is evident however is that, on being advised of the resident’s needs, the landlord went beyond what it was obliged to do, in the absence of OT referral, in order to find a way to accommodate the resident’s needs, including bringing in an external kitchen planner. Given that it was unable to reach a satisfactory outcome it was also reasonable for the landlord to ask that the resident arrange for an OT referral to be carried out.
It is appropriate to also consider whether by seeking to find a way to install an eye level oven itself, the landlord unnecessarily delayed the resident in seeking an OT assessment. However, given that the landlord was made aware of the resident’s need on or around 9 April 2021 and had reached the conclusion that it was unable to resolve the issue itself by 18 June 2021, a two month delay in the resident seeking an OT referral would constitute a unreasonable delay by the landlord.
Despite there being no failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request, it is evident that the lack of success in arranging the kitchen to accommodate the eye level oven has caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. The resident having advised this service on 23 February 2023 that she still has no oven and cooks her food using two burners.
This service is also aware that approximately seven months after the landlord’s final response the resident’s OT made contact with the landlord on 14 April 2022 to advise that, due to the resident experiencing a lot of pain when bending, she would benefit from an oven at a height to be agreed by the resident.
Whilst the landlord’s response to this OT referral has not been considered as part of this investigation, a recommendation has been made that the landlord contact the resident to discuss this report, which the service understands from the resident it has not yet done. It is also recommended that as there remains a disagreement between both parties as the reason why the landlord’s suggestions for the kitchen were unsuccessful that this also be discussed with the resident to see whether, if she was in agreement with having her fridge under the counter or in her living room, a solution might now be found.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for an eye level oven in her kitchen.

Reasons

Whilst there were unreasonable delays in the landlord complete the repairs necessary to allow the resident to move into the property, the steps taken by the landlord to redress this, including waiving the rent from the start of the tenancy until those repairs were complete were reasonable and proportionate. However, the landlord failed to adequately acknowledge or to offer reasonable redress for the additional delays in completing the repairs to the resident’s balcony. Whilst these repairs did not prevent the resident from moving into the property, the unreasonable length of time they took to complete caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord took the resident’s concerns about the need for an eye level oven seriously and, whilst not obliged to, sought to resolve those concerns at the earliest opportunity by attempting to carry out the adaptations needed itself, without the resident having to wait for an OT referral. Having been unable to resolve the issue itself, the landlord bought in an external kitchen planner but a solution was not found. As that was the case it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that she would need to arrange an OT assessment so that the OT could propose a way forward.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

That within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident and pay her £200 for the unreasonable delays in it completing the repairs to her balcony.
2. Pay the resident the £200 compensation offered in its final response, if it has not done so already.
3. Pay the resident the £143 for travel expenses offered in its final response, if it has not done so already.
4. Confirm it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

That within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, it is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to:
1. Discuss the OT report it received in April 2022, which the service understands from the resident it has not yet done.
2. Discuss whether, if she was in agreement with having her fridge under the counter or in her living room, a solution might now be found with regards to her eye level oven.