Peabody Trust (202128473)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128473

Peabody Trust

13 April 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 handling of: –
   1. The resident’s decant from her property following the collapse of upstairs flooring.
   2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the floor.
   3. The resident’s request that she be reimbursed her expenses during the decant period.
   4. The resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is the secure tenant of a two bedroomed house where she has lived for more than 20 years. On 21 June 2021 her relative was walking across the upstairs landing in the property when the floor gave way creating a hole, bending under floor pipework, and damaging the ceiling below into the living room where another relative was sitting. Fortunately nobody was injured. The resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours repairs service which attended the property a few hours later.
3. The landlord decided to decant the resident and her family from the property to a hotel. The resident had been discharged from hospital that day following surgery, was on a special diet and had been prescribed various medications. Her younger son needed to attend school and her elder son was taking his final examinations in the expectation of gaining a place at university. The hotel was 60 – 90 minutes away from home and the situation was not ideal. The resident understood she was to be moved to a serviced apartment but this did not happen – she was, however, moved to another hotel nearer to home until repairs had been carried out.
4. On returning to the property, two weeks later, the resident was not reassured by the work that had been done. The landlord inspected it and determined that whilst it represented a temporary solution, and more work was needed, it was safe for the family’s return. Further repairs were completed by the end of August 2021 but the resident continued to report to the landlord that there was movement when the floor was walked on. Following an inspection on 2 August 2022 the landlord conceded the floor was still not right and agreed to further repairs – scheduled to be carried out on 30 August 2022.
5. On 2 August 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about the way it had handled her decant and the necessary repairs. She questioned its approach to the expenses she had incurred and sought compensation for them and for her inconvenience. Ultimately the landlord accepted that there had been failings in its handling of the decant, the repairs and the complaint itself. It offered total compensation of £951.60 which represented £180 for food, £291.60 for travel expenses, £30 for late payment of expenses, £350 for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience, and £100 for not following its complaint handling process correctly.
6. The resident remains dissatisfied and has referred the matter to this Service. Not all of her expenses were agreed by the landlord and she considers the overall compensation to be inadequate. The resident was asked to pay rent during her decant which she feels was unfair. The resident takes the view that proper repairs would never have been carried out had she not pushed the landlord over a protracted period. She reports having lost confidence in the safety of her long-time home.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s decant from her property following the collapse of upstairs flooring.

7. The landlord’s operative attended the property on the same evening that the floor collapse was reported. The family were concerned that they could not use the landing to leave the bedrooms and access the bathroom. The landlord flagged up the option of calling the fire brigade for assistance and even though the contractor reported making the property safe at their attendance, the family were offered a decant. The landlord was made aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and this initial urgent response to the situation was appropriate.
8. The decant took place late in the evening. Hotel rooms were arranged and the resident had the understanding that this was a last resort (given the timing) and the family would be moved to a serviced apartment. Her post-surgery care involved a special liquid diet which a hotel would be unable to provide and she would not have the facilities to prepare it. However, the resident ended up staying in this hotel for a week before moving to a second one for another week. Further, the first one was some 60 – 90 minutes away from home and from her sons’ school/college.
9. In its final complaint response, the landlord accepted that the resident had been led to believe a move to a serviced apartment was planned and that this information was incorrect. It was reasonable that it acknowledged this point. With regard to the choice of hotel, the landlord asserted that it did its best at short notice and this was the only availability it could source. It stated that it had continued to review the situation, looking for something more appropriate for the family.
10. In an ideal world, the landlord might have secured better facilities for the family, particularly given the fragility of the resident’s health at that point. Whilst the situation was clearly distressing for the resident and her family, the landlord’s records show considerable liaison between its staff members about the situation, the decant, and the repairs in the days following this incident and there is no evidence to show that a better decant arrangement could have been achieved.
11. There were other issues raised by the resident with regard to the handling of the decant. There was a gap of one night between the booking for the first hotel and that of the second which had to be resolved otherwise the family would have had nowhere to stay. At the first hotel the resident’s sons were on a different floor which caused worry as she was unable to supervise them. They also had a lengthy journey to school. Furthermore, the resident returned to the property at the end of the second week because the hotel reported the booking had not been extended and by the time the landlord had confirmed that it had been, the resident had been required to leave.
12. The landlord might reasonably have been expected to try to avoid such issues and as stated above the landlord has admitted a service failing in this regard and it was appropriate that it did so. The landlord offered compensation for the resident’s time and trouble and inconvenience in dealing with the issues she encountered as a result of the decant of £350 (revised from an initial offer of £50 and an improved offer of £250).
13. The landlord operates a Compensation Policy which sets out its approach to assessing claims. It states that an award can be offered for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience up to a maximum of £400, depending upon how severe the disruption was that the resident experienced. The policy sets out three categories of disruption – minor, moderate, or extensive – with the final one equating to an award between £301 – £400. Under the circumstances of this complaint, the landlord’s categorisation of the disruption to the resident as “extensive” (given the sum offered falls in this bracket) is considered appropriate. The landlord has therefore offered reasonable redress in respect of its service failings.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the floor

14. It is noted that the out of hours contractor reported to the landlord that the property had been made safe, that the repairs were not extensive and that a decant might not be necessary. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 June 2021 to advise the property was safe to move back in to. She disputed this on the basis the out of hours repair only consisted of a couple of boards being put down across the floor where it had given way. The landlord therefore agreed to extend the decant whilst it arranged the repairs. This was reasonable under the circumstances.
15. The works were scheduled for 30 June 2021 and completed on 1 July 2021. The landlord spoke to the resident the next day and she remained dissatisfied with what had been done, asking for an inspection to take place of the work. The landlord agreed which was a reasonable response.
16. The landlord’s Senior Property Manager then inspected the property and reported that as the family had been decanted, he had expected a full, permanent repair to have been effected – however only ‘holding’ repairs had been undertaken. Whilst the landlord concluded the property was safe to live in, it shared the resident’s dissatisfaction with its contractor’s work. A further site visit took place on 8 July 2021 when further works were identified as necessary.
17. Whilst the landlord expressed that it was unhappy with its contractor, it has to take responsibility for its operatives’ actions as far as the resident is concerned. The failure to offer a long term repair when the ongoing decant was agreed to achieve this, represented a significant failing in the service offered to the resident.
18. There then followed a misunderstanding which exacerbated the resident’s dissatisfaction. The landlord advised the resident that on 13 July 2021 the work had been marked as completed when in fact nothing further had been done. It became apparent that one of the landlord’s teams had marked its involvement as completed because another team – the surveyors – were taking the case over – but the resident was not given this information. As nothing seemed to be happening with the repairs, the resident lodged her formal complaint. One of the issues complained about was a lack of communication about the repairs and this sequence of events illustrates the poor communication by the landlord. It then arranged for a further visit to the property with its contractor and the works took place at the end of August 2021, just over two months after the original event.
19. It can be seen that the service offered to the resident by the landlord failed in a number of respects. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the repairs had been “protracted due to poor works” but did not consider any remedy for this.
20. The purpose of the decant being extended was to effect long term repairs and this is not what happened. The landlord’s failings identified above amount to maladministration. The resident was left living in a property which still needed repair, which she had to drive forward and accommodate, and which left her nervous of using certain areas of the house. The landlord did not offer any remedy for this and a further order for compensation of an additional £300 has been made below.
21. For the sake of completeness the Ombudsman notes that following the repairs in August 2021 the resident was still not satisfied with the situation. During the course of this investigation she has informed this Service that she chased the landlord for some time to carry out a further survey to inspect the work and further work was agreed to reinforce the floor. This report deals with the events that were the subject of the complaint that exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process on 26 January 2022. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response to her requests in 2022 that it carry out a further survey of the floor then she would need to raise a new complaint with the landlord.

The resident’s request that she be reimbursed her expenses during the decant period.

22. The landlord agreed to provide the resident with a food allowance. The hotel could not offer the liquid diet required by the resident and she had no facilities to prepare it herself. In an internal email of 2 July 2021 it described this as an “allowance of £20 per person per day, which I believe is actually more than what we would usually allow (I believe normally £15).”. The landlord’s Decant Policy confirms the figure is £15 and the higher allowance reflects the landlord’s understanding of the resident’s additional needs. The allowance offered was, therefore, both appropriate to the policy and reasonable given this resident’s vulnerabilities. An overall sum was later agreed between resident and landlord at £180 in total for the decant period.
23. The resident then claimed £366.60 for transport costs in getting her younger son to and from school, travel to and from the hotel and for trips to the shops. She further claimed £60 for the cost of her elder son to get to college.
24. Initially the landlord only offered £70 in respect of the travel costs, stating the younger son could have travelled to school on public transport and this could have been used more by the resident. She, in turn reminded the landlord of her health situation and pointed out the younger son would be taking a 60 – 90 minute journey on public transport when he did not know the area and she was not well enough to accompany him. The landlord then increased its offer to £227.48 agreeing to pay the school travel costs. Subsequent to this it agreed a further £64.12 in costs, bringing the total to £291.60.
25. The resident has complained about the landlord’s decision not to pay the remaining £75.00 which represents her elder son’s travel expenses to college and an unspecified £15 charge. She considers the landlord has acted unreasonably in refusing to meet these costs and in not agreeing the other costs at the outset of her claim, especially as it was already aware of her health situation.
26. The landlord’s Decant Policy states that “depending on individual circumstances, we may reimburse tenants … for other costs, such as laundry, phone calls, and additional travel costs”. The policy does not set out an obligation for the landlord to do this in every case – only that it consider it in exceptional circumstances.
27. Therefore, as the landlord was under no obligation to pay any additional travel costs it acted appropriately and demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s individual circumstances into account by agreeing to pay any expenses.
28. For the sake of completeness it is noted that the resident was charged rent during the two weeks she was decanted from the property and whilst the repairs were ongoing. The landlord’s Decant Policy states that “Tenants or occupants will continue to pay rent … for their permanent home. The temporary home will be rent and service charge free.” The landlord’s approach to the payment of rent during the decant period was therefore appropriate. With regard to the payment of rent during the repair period, there is no evidence the property was uninhabitable at the time. The landlord’s surveyor confirmed it was safe, albeit further work was still required. The landlord acted reasonably in seeking rent during this time.

The resident’s complaint.

29. The resident complained via an online form on 2 August 2021 and whilst the landlord wrote to her on 10 August 2021 setting out its position on its handling of the decant and her expenses claim, it did not send this letter as a complaint response.
30. On 11 September 2021 the landlord wrote further regarding the decant and the expenses claim but again did not express this as being a complaint response. When the resident questioned the position further on 15 September 2021, however, the landlord treated her contact as an escalation request and advised the resident the review would be allocated to a staff member within 7 days. The resident chased the matter on 12 October 2021 having not heard anything further and the landlord responded that this was due to high demand and it would respond with its review by 3 November 2021. However, the landlord did not then provide that response until 25 November 2021, a delay of some 15 working days.
31. In that response the landlord confirmed that it had failed to manage the resident’s complaint in accordance with its policy and procedures – specifically it had failed to log it as a complaint in the first place and had failed to advise the resident how to escalate her concerns in the two letters it did send out (which were not marked as complaint responses anyway). The landlord offered compensation for “not following the correct process” of £100.
32. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord’s acknowledgement that its complaint handling had faltered was appropriate, based upon the above chronology of events. Its Compensation Policy provides for compensation up to a maximum of £100 for poor complaints handling, with the bracket between £76 – £100 reserved for the most severe failures. The landlord has offered the maximum despite the fact that it might reasonably have argued its failings fell into the lesser category of £26 – £75. It has therefore offered reasonable redress for this part of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s decant from her property.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s expenses claim.
36. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

37. The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident compensation of £300 in respect of the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of its handling of the repairs to the property.  
38. The landlord should confirm with this Service that it has complied with the Order within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

39. The landlord should reoffer to the resident the £951.60 compensation already offered less any amount already paid.
40. The landlord is recommended to arrange an inspection of the flooring situation at the property and arrange for any further repairs to be made. It should consider arranging a post work inspection after any future works to ensure the resident is happy that the job has been completed to a satisfactory and safe standard. The landlord is asked to consider further compensation for any failings it identifies for the work that had been carried out following on from the complaint.