Peabody Trust (202103988)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103988

Peabody Trust

17 March 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

  1. The complaint is about:

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement following a leak at the property.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of a liability insurance claim which paid values for personal items she claimed for which he considered were too low. It is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to consider dissatisfaction with insurers. This is because the Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about landlords’ actions and we cannot look at other organisations. Therefore, matters relating to the actions of the liability insurer will not be considered in this investigation.
  2. The resident has also disputed whether the landlord was liable for damage to her possessions resulting from the leak and considered that the leak occurred as a result of previous repairs which she has said were poor quality. It is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to determine liability or negligence; these are legal terms and are more appropriately suited for determination by a court or the landlord’s liability insurer. These issues will not be considered in this investigation, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  3. This investigation will therefore consider whether the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in a reasonable manner and in accordance with its policy and procedure.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and experienced a leak into her property on 16 August 2020 due to a blocked roof gulley.
  2. On 30 September 2020, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord in which she sought reimbursement for the cost of replacing personal items damaged by the leak. During subsequent correspondence about the complaint, the resident said that she had not been given clear information on what she should do to seek reimbursement for her damaged items, the progress of the repairs, and when she would be able to move back into her home.
  3. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 13 October 2020 which directed her to her home contents insurance to make a claim for her possessions. The landlord said it would feed back to staff about her dissatisfaction with communication. It confirmed that it had replaced carpeting in affected areas in the property as a goodwill gesture and noted that she had contacted its insurance team about making a liability insurance claim. The landlord confirmed that negligence and liability were not matters it determined through its complaints process.
  4. The resident attempted to escalate her complaint on 15 October 2020 as she was unhappy with the handling and progress of repair works, and the condition of her possessions when she returned. The landlord arranged a meeting between her and its surveyor and the complaint was closed with her agreement.
  5. The landlord’s records noted that all remedial works were completed and the resident returned to the property on 16 November 2020. The resident raised a reimbursement claim with the landlord on 9 February 2021 for her damaged possessions and rent she paid while staying in temporary accommodation. She contended that damage was caused by the landlord’s handling of remedial works. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 and 23 February 2021 to confirm rent was still due and she had not been eligible for a food allowance while away. It did not raise a complaint, reiterating that she should deal with its liability insurer regarding her claim.
  6. The resident raised another stage one complaint with the landlord on 11 June 2021 as she was unhappy that its liability insurer would only pay the depreciated value of her items and that she had been charged rent while she was in temporary accommodation. The resident said that the landlord had admitted liability but the insurance would not cover all the costs she had incurred. On 30 June 2021, the landlord replied to her and maintained its position. On the basis that it had already responded to the resident’s dissatisfactions, the landlord declined to open a new complaint.
  7. After the resident sought intervention from the Ombudsman, the landlord escalated her complaint on 5 January 2022. Her reasons for continued dissatisfaction were that repairs were not started in her property until two months after the leak and the absence of dehumidifiers caused further damage. She added that the landlord had given conflicting information about a rent credit.
  8. The landlord issued its final response to the complaints on 12 January 2022 in which it said that there was no evidence of it admitting liability for the leak and that it could not comment on the outcome of insurance claims. The landlord said that there was no evidence of the resident being informed that rent was not payable; if she had, this would have been an error and rent would still have been payable. The landlord noted that the insurance payment would have resulted in a shortfall for the resident because of depreciation in the value of items over time; however, it said that it could not address this through its complaints policy. The landlord offered £25 compensation for its “lack of clarity” on whether it should have escalated the complaint.
  9. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 15 February 2022 that she continued to be dissatisfied as she had incurred costs from replacing her damaged belongings. She disputed that the landlord had not admitted liability or that she was not entitled to a food allowance while living away from her property.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s request for reimbursement following a leak at the property

  1. The landlord’s decant policy confirms that, when a resident is moved to temporary accommodation where no cooking facilities are available, it may pay a food allowance of up to £15 per day. This also confirms that residents are required to continue paying rent for their permanent home while they are staying in the temporary accommodation. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will not consider compensation where a claim can be made on home contents or buildings insurance and compensation “is not intended to replace… home contents insurance”.
  2. The landlord responded reasonably and in accordance with its policies to the resident’s request for reimbursement following the leak at her property. The substance of the resident’s complaints on 30 September 2020, 9 February and 11 June 2021, was that she wanted reimbursement of the expenses she incurred during the leak. The landlord acted in accordance with its policy above by referring her to its liability insurer to seek reimbursement.
  3. The resident maintained that she did not have to pay rent on her property while she was living in temporary accommodation but there was no evidence any arrangement being made with her about this. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to maintain in its responses to her that the rent was still due, in accordance with the decant. It also explained to her, in accordance with its policy, that she was not entitled to a food allowance payment while living away as she was in accommodation which had cooking facilities.
  4. The resident said that she was given a form to apply for rent credit, which she understood was for crediting her with the value of the rent while she was staying in temporary accommodation. The landlord’s final complaint response said that it was unsure what she was referring to. However, the landlord clarified this matter in its email to her on 23 February 2021, when it explained that an annual rent increase had been removed from the resident’s rent account. This was a reasonable explanation; however, it would have been useful for the landlord to explicitly state that this was the rent credit, to avoid confusion later.
  5. Aside from this lack of clarity, there was no evidence of a failure in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s request for reimbursement of her costs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage internal complaints procedure. At stage one of this procedure the landlord should provide a full response to the resident within ten working days; at the final stage it should provide its response within 20 working days. This policy states that the landlord will not consider complaints relating to “insurance claims and appeals including damage to personal possessions… which should be referred to the relevant insurers”. The policy also states that, before progressing a complaint formally, the landlord “would first look to resolve the matter locally with the relevant service area” if appropriate.
  2. The timeframes above mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code, which member landlords are required to comply with, states that a landlord should accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to. Valid reasons would be that the issue complained about had already been considered by the landlord through its complaints policy or that the issue occurred over six months ago (with the possible exception of health and safety or safeguarding issues). The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that it will usually not consider complaints where the matter complained about occurred more than six months ago, although it may exercise discretion in this.
  3. The Code also states that a landlord should set out clear timescales for the escalation of a complaint. If it declines to escalate a complaint to the next stage, it should also have clear and valid reasons for this course of action, which should correspond with the reasons set out above.
  4. The resident raised her stage one complaint with the landlord on 30 September 2020. It responded to this on 13 October 2020, which was in accordance with the timeframe specified above. The resident attempted to escalate her complaint two days later and the landlord spoke to her to clarify the complaint, noting that her reasons for escalation were different to her original complaint, which centred on the communication from its staff. However, given that the central issue was related to her stage one complaint, which was her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of remedial work after the leak, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to escalate the complaint.
  5. It is noted that the landlord reached an agreement with the resident not to escalate the complaint by arranging for her to meet with repairs staff to discuss her concerns and made her aware that she retained the right to raise a new complaint if she continued to be dissatisfied. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman encourages a holistic view of complaints and the landlord will be recommended to take this approach and not discourage a resident from raising or escalating a complaint.
  6. The resident raised a new complaint with the landlord on 9 February 2021 seeking reimbursement for the costs she had incurred because of the leak. The landlord declined to progress this complaint as it had already addressed this previously. This was not a reasonable response as, although it had previously directed the resident to seek reimbursement though an insurance claim in its response on 13 October 2020, it did not address the resident’s additional concern that its handling of the repairs had led to further damage to her possessions. She said that the length of time taken for the remedial work and the absence of dehumidifiers had caused further water damage. The landlord should have taken this opportunity to identify whether there had been any failure in its handling of the remedial works.
  7. When the resident subsequently highlighted the liability for paying rent while she was living in temporary accommodation, the landlord reasonably responded to this outside of its formal complaints procedure, given that this was the first time she had raised the matter. It acted in accordance with its complaints policy to provide an initial response from the appropriate service areas to reply to the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction.
  8. When the resident raised the issues of liability for rent and reimbursement for possessions again as another stage one complaint on 11 June 2021, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not consider the rent aspect of the complaint. While it was reasonable for it to decline to investigate the resident’s request for reimbursement as this had been previously addressed through the complaints procedure, the landlord should have considered the rent aspect as this had not been formally investigated. Furthermore, the resident alleged that she had been informed that she did not need to pay rent while she lived away and the landlord missed an opportunity to identify, though its complaints procedure, whether a failure had occurred in communicating this with the resident.
  9. Consequently, when the landlord addressed the rent aspect of the resident’s dissatisfaction in its final response to her on 12 January 2022 it could not investigate the issue further as it was now historical. The landlord’s offer of £25 compensation not reasonable in the circumstances as throughout, it failed to address all the points raised by the resident. It did not address the resident’s concern that the handling of the works caused additional damage to her possessions or whether the requirement to pay rent had been communicated with her correctly. The landlord’s final response also did not respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction with not being offered a food allowance.
  10. While the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement was reasonable – that this was a matter for its insurers – this did not mean that her other concerns could not be considered. A landlord should use the complaints process as a tool to identify where failures may have arisen and improve aspects of its service provision. Its refusal to raise complaints on two occasions presented a barrier to this.
  11. The landlord therefore, unreasonably refused to consider all aspects of the resident’s complaint, and its lack of a timely response to these led to the issues being difficult to investigate as it is more difficult to investigate issues which took place a long time ago. This was a failure by the landlord and compensation of £150, inclusive of the £25 it already offered, should be paid to the resident to recognise the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident in pursuing her complaints.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for reimbursement following a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation, inclusive of the £25 it offered her in its final response.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman, within four weeks, that it has complied with the above order.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should consider investigating whether any failures occurred in the handling of remedial works following the leak at the resident’s property and whether there was a failure in communication about whether rent was payable while she was in temporary accommodation.