Peabody Trust (202112245)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112245

Peabody Trust

28 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Background and summary of events

Policies

The landlord’s complaints policy states when an expression of dissatisfaction is received, it would first look to resolve the matter locally via its contact centre or with the relevant service area or contractor. This initial stage of the process is managed by the Customer Contact Service or Customer Contact Incident Team.
If this approach does not reach the desired resolution, or it is deemed inappropriate, it can be registered as a formal complaint.
It has a two stage complaints process:
1. Stage one is investigated by a manager from the relevant service area, it should be acknowledged in three working days and responded to in 10 working days, unless an additional 10 days are requested.
2. Sometimes the stage one response provided will be confirming that further actions need to be carried out in order to resolve the complaint. In this instance the stage one response will include details of the remaining actions we will take in order to resolve the complaint, including what will be the next steps, and a communication plan of how often we will provide an update until completed, e.g. further repairs being needed. When the investigation has been completed either at 10 days or after all final actions have been completed the case manager must provide a final stage one response.
3. Stage 2, If the complainant raises concerns from the stage one response, the landlord will discuss the points being raised to find a satisfactory resolution. If this is not possible an escalation request can be passed to the Customer Experience Team, to be investigated by the Customer Experience Team Manager who has 15 working days to review and respond; an additional 10 working days can be requested if needed.
The landlords Compensation Policy says, payments are made when a person has experienced a delay or has incurred additional costs because of a service failure on our part, or if we have failed to carry out a service within our published guidelines, inability to use part of a property, a failure to meet agreed standards of service and poor complaint handling. Compensation calculation guidelines are:
1. Time, trouble, and inconvenience caused: up to a maximum of £400.
2. Not adhering to the complaints procedure or policy or managing the complaint effectively through regular communication and proactive management or investigation: Up to a maximum of £100.
3. Unusable rooms Kitchen /Bathroom 25% rent rebate, Bedroom 20% rent rebate, living room 10% rent rebate all after 48 hours.
The landlord has a repairs policy which says “specialist works” are works that fall outside the time frame of a responsive repair, are complex in nature therefore require either a specialist contractor and/or a technical lead in diagnosing and managing the works through to completion, should be completed within 60 calendar days.
The repairs policy also states that the landlord offers residents appointment times and advises that it will give reasonable notice if they need to come into residents’ homes to carry out work or inspect.

Summary of Events

The resident moved to the three-bedroom property via a mutual exchange and holds an assured tenancy with the landlord.
On 17 February 2020, the resident reported a problem with the plaster blowing around the window to her flat.
On 13 March 2020, the landlord’s technical inspector went to view the resident’s property. He noted that the landing window, appeared to be the cause of the water getting in, but further investigation was required. In order to inspect in more detail, scaffolding would need to be erected.
Four months later on 15 July 2020, scaffolding was erected. This was for another works order to fix the guttering. The landlords’ notes show that the resident asked on this day, if the other work connected to the water getting through the window could be done at the same time. The landlord advised that interior plastering work had been put on hold, but they would enquire whether other parts of the work could be done.
On 26 August 2020, the resident called the landlord and requested an appointment in regard to the outstanding window problem. An appointment for a technical officer was booked for 29 September 2020.
On 1 October 2020, the landlord’s technical officer (TO) submitted his report, and advised that the window installed by a previous contractor has been poorly installed. There were signs of water ingress under the window travelling down to the ceiling directly below. Internally there were cracks to the left and right reveals, and externally there was a lead cover flashing installed, which did not continue the length of the threshold and had come away. Pointing to the reveals either side had cracked, and there was an issue directly adjacent to this which needed closer inspection externally.
The TO’s report also stated that an adjustment to the existing scaffold or a new rear scaffold would be needed to give full access to the window. He had contacted the scaffold company to discuss it as the existing scaffold to the front and walkway across the roof was incomplete and would need to be completed to allow working access. The report also pointed out, that there would be additional costs for the extra scaffold, the use of the existing one and the repair costs if the landlord proceeded with the repair.
On 27 November 2020, the resident chased the landlord for an update. The landlord stated that it was waiting for a cost query to be resolved.
On 9 December 2020 the financial decision was made, that this repair did not come under the defects clause for the previous window replacement programme, as it was completed too long ago, it was not part of a more recent external repair and decorating programme, it could therefore go ahead under responsive repairs.
On 8 January 2021 an internal email was sent by the landlord stating again that a scaffold was required to allow safe and full inspection, which had previously been requested, as it was a ‘working at height’ repair. To assess the full works and submit a cost it recommended a joint inspection with the contractors.
On 10 March 2021 the resident called the landlord for an update. She called again on 22 March 2021, and was told by the landlord that nothing had been booked in relation to this repair. The landlord asked the resident if she wanted the matter to be raised with Customer Contact Investigation Manager (CCIM).
On 24 March 2021, the resident wanted an update, and wanted to escalate to a complaint as the job was taking too long. The landlord’s customer service officer asked the maintenance team to call the resident to prevent escalation. There is no evidence this was progressed.
On 23 April 2021 the landlord and contractors met on site; it was agreed the window was not fit for purpose neither was a repair that had been carried out to the roof. It was arranged for the two contractors to attend on 29 April 2021 to draft a specification of works.
On 9 April 2021, the landlord allocated the resident’s case to the Customer Contact Incident Team (CCIT), to investigate the repair issue and get it back on track. Between this date and the end of August 2021, the CCIM logs approximately 80 actions on the reporting system for the resident’s case. A combination of requests for information, meeting arrangements, appointments, contact with the landlord’s contract monitoring team, contractors, and correspondence with the resident.
On 11 May 2021, the scaffold was amended. 24 May 2021 the landlord requested a quote from the contractors, which was not forthcoming, it was chased again 2 June 2021. On 23 June 2021 the contractors met to draft the specification. The resident asked if the remedial work could be completed on her return from holiday a few days later.
On 27 July 2021, a date for the work to commence was agreed for 16 August 2021. The contract was expected to take seven to ten working days.
On 16 August 2021, the resident called the landlord to advise the contractors had not turned up to carry out the work as planned. The landlord tried to chase the contractors, but did not get a response, so the work did not start on that day.
Work commenced on 17 August 2021. The resident complained that the bathroom heater had been left off of the specification. The landlord agreed to add an electric bathroom heater to the works later that day.
On 17 August 2021, the contractor put the rubbish and debris from the works in the resident’s front garden. The resident made numerous requests for this rubbish and debris to be removed, it took until close to the end of the project for the landlord to move it.
Between 17 August and 26 August 2021, several non-attendances by the contractor were reported and a number of incidences when they turned up without an appointment when the resident was not in.
On 24 August 2021, the resident left the landlord a message to say the top panes of glass in the windows did not match the bottom panes that had been fitted. On the same day, the landlords CCIM, after consultation with the resident, made the decision to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage one; she had, had the case 153 days without resolution. This escalation request had to wait to be accepted by the complaints team.
On 26 August 2021, the resident had not received confirmation that her complaint had been escalated. She contacted this service who advised the resident to insist on her complaint being escalated to stage one for investigation, which she did.
On 7 September 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint. In this acknowledgement the landlord accepted the initial repair was raised in February 2020, to investigate that the plaster was coming away from the window, that the window had since been replaced, but the glass did not match. It advised a new pane of glass had been ordered for the top window, and that this officer would oversee the complaint through to completion of the repairs. At this point a full response would be given, and information on how to escalate the complaint if the resident was not satisfied.
The resident did not receive the email, and found out when she chased the landlord, that it had been sent to an email address that was no longer in use. The resident questioned this, as the landlord had been successfully emailing her for over a year on this issue on the correct address, and questioned whether this was her stage one response.
On 14 September 2021, the landlord responded saying this was the email address it held on file but would amend the records accordingly. It also confirmed that this was not the stage one response, this would be provided on completion of the works. She was also advised that they would not consider compensation until the repairs had been completed. A further email sent that day, advised that on 29 September 2021, the contractor would attend to measure the window and between 16-18 September 2021 and 21 September 2021, it would attend to complete the works to the hallway.
On 14 September 2021, the resident, expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage two. The landlord advised the resident, it would remain at stage one. Later that day after speaking with this service the resident requested escalation of her complaint, again to stage two.
On 28 September 2021, the landlord acknowledged that the resident’s complaint had been escalated to stage two of its complaint procedure. The investigator broke the resident’s complaint down into four key areas:
1. Replacement of the hallway window, which had been chased since October 2020, lower window had been changed, upper window to be replaced to match the existing.
2. Replacement of an electric heater in the bathroom.
3. Making good the hallway following work to the window.
4. Removal of the contractor’s rubbish from garden.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 10 December 2021. It apologised for the service the resident had received and accepted there had been unacceptable delays. It proposed the resolution as a two-part approach; ensuring that all the work was completed and to offer the resident reasonable compensation. The key elements of the landlord’s response and proposal are summarised as follows:
1. List of works still to be completed:
  1. Scaffolding amendment
  2. flashing, re-pointing and the clearing of the gutters
  3. Redecorate bathroom: minor touching up.
  4. Window board: Renew Hardwood: Hallway sub board.
  5. Window board: Renew PVCU: Finishing board to bathroom and hallway.
  6. Window: Overhaul Casement: Kitchen window cannot close
  7. Window: Replace with extended arm stay: Kitchen window
  8. Window: Supply and fix chain drive Handle: Kitchen window closest match
  9. Shower Screen Renew Glass over bath.
  10. Window: Renew glazing to blade
  11. Plaster Repair Renew Reveal to Frame
  12. Halls Stairs 2 Storey: Hallway decoration
  13. New Heater: Isolate/reconnect supply, provide new 13 amp spur single socket outlet to ground floor, connect to existing ring main in mini trunking.
2. The issue with the window was first reported in February 2020, with an eight-week lead in time, so expected completion should have been at the end of March 2020. At this time, the country entered lock down and all non- essential work had to be put on hold until the repairs service resumed in August 2020. As this was outside of the landlord’s control it would not consider compensation for this time period.
3. It explained the landlord was responsible for over 12,000 repairs a month, and could not monitor all repairs, so it relied on the contractor performing to their contractual obligations. In this instance the issue was the scaffolding, although there were discussions about it, no one individual took responsibility, so nothing was progressed.
4. When the repairs service resumed, restrictions were still in place, and with a backlog of over 45,000 repairs it was not possible to maintain a good service.
5. The resident made a complaint in March 2021, and the repair monitoring was allocated to the landlord’s CCIM team. This improved communication for the resident, but the performance from the contractor did not improve, so they enlisted the assistance of the landlord’s contract monitoring team. Whilst the repair was not completed the benefit was the involvement of the landlord’s quality inspector.
6. There were delays in reporting the Quality Inspector’s findings.
7. The delays increased the damage, and the scope of the work changed.
8. They have learnt lessons from the lack of progress from the CCIM team and delays from the Quality Management Service and made changes in their processes as a result.
9. It offered compensation in line with its compensation policy, a total of £1,055.51 broken down as follows:
  1. Time and trouble £600.00 (above the maximum which is £400.00 because delays were significant).
  1. Complaint handling £100.00 (the customer service team should have escalated the complaint sooner).
  2. Affected enjoyment of the home £355.51 ( the landlord does not compensate for scaffolding or loss of use of a hallway, as it would other rooms in the home; so awarded a 5% rebate as a gesture of goodwill, for this instead).
The resident accepted the compensation but did not agree it was sufficient redress for the service failings and inconvenience she had experienced.
The scaffolding was removed on 22 December 2022.

Assessment and findings

The resident reported a problem with her window on 17 February 2020, because the plaster was coming away around it. The landlord responded within a reasonable timeframe, sending a technical inspector to investigate within a month. The technical inspector identified that water was penetrating around the window from outside, and appropriately recommended further investigation externally which would require a scaffold to be erected.
The landlord’s repairs policy states, that a technical officer led repair should take no-longer than 60 working days, and its stage two response states, for a replacement window, it has an eight-week lead in time, so expected completion would have been at the end of March 2020. The work however was not completed until 22 December 2021, which was an unreasonable length of time to complete the works, even taking into account any delay experienced as a result of the Covid-19 lockdowns. The Landlord has accepted this, it has apologised and offered £600.00 compensation for time and trouble. This included an amount for the significant delay, unnecessary appointments and the fact that the resident had to chase the landlord, which was reasonable.
The resident had no further contact with the landlord until scaffolding was erected on 15 July 2020. The landlord explained this period of inactivity was due to the lockdown and Covid-19 restrictions being in place, which was outside of the landlord’s control.
This however was not the scaffolding recommended in March 2020, to inspect the window, this was for a separate job to repair the guttering. The resident asked the landlord if the window work could be completed whilst this scaffold was in place, which was a reasonable request.
The landlord’s response was that the plastering had been put on hold, but they would check on the other parts of the work and agreed to get back to her. There was no further contact with the resident until 26 August 2020, when she contacted them again to chase the repair issue. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not report back to the resident as agreed, and that the resident had to chase the landlord again.
The landlord raised a second technical inspection, which did not resolve the problem, because the correct scaffold was not in place, so the specification of works needed, could not be obtained.
The landlord has accepted that the resident has had to endure a number of unnecessary appointments, for which it has apologised and has appropriately awarded a sum included in the £600.00 offer of compensation for time and trouble.
In its stage two response the landlord advised that the repairs service was back up and running from August 2020, and any delay that occurred with the resident’s repair at this time was due to issues with staffing, post Covid-19 repair backlogs and a higher demand for repairs. The evidence set out in the paragraphs above supports that delay at this time was down to staff error, failing to follow up whether the work could be completed via the current scaffolding and then not arranging the appropriate scaffolding, noted in the repair records for the inspection on 29 September 2020.
The landlord’s report from 29 September 2020,identified that there was likely to be a significant cost implication for the landlord if the repairs went ahead. The evidence suggests that the period of delay between the inspection of 29 September 2020 and 9 December 2020, was due to awaiting a decision from the budget holders as to whether the cost of the repair could be claimed as a defect, which was not acknowledged in the stage two response.
There was evidence that the need for scaffolding was raised several times and discussed internally and with contractors, but it took an unreasonable amount of time. It was not until 11 May 2021 that the correct scaffolding was put in place. The landlord did appropriately acknowledge that this was a significant delay and a failing, caused by no one individual taking ownership of the task. The landlord did appropriately apologise and took this aspect into account when awarding compensation for time and delay.
The lack of communication from the landlord to the tenant in regard to this repair was not appropriate. The Ombudsman accepts landlords had challenges in providing services during Covid-19, however, if the deterioration in repair services and the resulting delays were down to problems caused by Covid-19 and the after effects, this service would expect to see evidence of the landlord communicating this information to the resident. There was no evidence that the landlord explained to the resident what the restrictions on its service were, or predicted expectations on timescales.
Prior to the resident making her complaint in March 2021, the landlord had not initiated contact with the resident at all, contact had only been instigated by her, to obtain information. The landlord has accepted that the resident had to unreasonably chase her repair excessively and apologised.
When the resident complained in March 2021 that the repair had been outstanding for a year, the landlord acted appropriately in allocating it to the Customer Contact Incident Team (CCIT), as set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. Having the CCIT involved however did not achieve its aim of getting the repair back on track and getting the issue resolved. The landlord has acknowledged this fact and apologised. It has also appropriately reviewed the processes of this team to improve its service.
The stage two complaint review, upheld the residents’ complaints; it appropriately accepted there had been unacceptable delays in carrying out the residents repairs and apologised. The investigating officer reviewed the programme of works required to complete, and took responsibility for oversight until the repairs were completed. Redress for this was reasonably agreed and was included in the £600.00 offered for time and trouble.
The landlord acknowledged that the enjoyment of the resident’s home had been affected by the handling of the repairs. It reasonably considered this aspect in awarding compensation, and whilst it does not normally offer compensation for loss of a hallway or having scaffolding present, it accepted there was an impact on the resident because of this. It fairly applied a 5% rent rebate, as a goodwill gesture, from July 2020 to November 2021, the length of time that the scaffold had been up at that point.
The landlord has not however, appropriately addressed the residents complaint about the rubbish and building debris left in her front garden. The Ombudsman accepts that on a project like this there will be rubbish and building debris, and it has to go outside of the property somewhere. However the expectation from this service would be, that it was cleared at the earliest opportunity, especially when young children live in the property. The resident asked repeatedly for the rubbish to be cleared after it was placed on the 17 August 2021, and it took over three months for the landlord to clear it, which is not reasonable.
The scaffolding was up for a further 12 days on the time calculated and awarded.

Complaint Handling

When the resident made her complaint, the landlord did not record it as a formal complaint, it treated it as an expression of dissatisfaction, which it was entitled to do under its complaints policy.
The reasoning behind this approach from the landlord, however, is “to resolve the matter without the need to record a formal complaint and ensure that any minor breakdown in service provision is dealt with quickly.” It was evident significantly earlier, than the 153 days the complaint was at this stage, that its aim to resolve the complaint quickly had not been achieved and it should have been escalated to stage one of the complaints process. The landlord had accepted this was not acceptable and appropriately amended its process so it does not exceed 60 days at this stage in the future.
The CCIT officer requested escalation of the resident’s complaint on 24 August 2021, the landlord’s records show that the CCIT officer was waiting acceptance of this handover, but it was not forthcoming. When an acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint had not been received, the resident contacted this service. On our advice, she put in writing that her complaint should be escalated. It was not appropriate for the landlord, not to accept the resident’s stage one complaint. Its complaint procedure says that if a resident feels that their expression of dissatisfaction is not progressing at the right pace, they can request escalation and a complaint request does not have to be made in writing.
The landlord’s procedure states that resident will receive an acknowledgement of the complaint in 3 working days. The resident made her request for escalation on 24 August 2021, but an acknowledgement was not received until 7 September 2021 which exceeded the landlord’s target response time.
The landlord’s acknowledgement letter advised that on completion of the repairs it would provide a final response to the complaint and address any redress in line with its policy. This was not reasonable, the landlords’ complaints policy says that a response should be received in 10 working days, detailing any further action to be taken, such as repairs. In addition the landlord sent the acknowledgement to a disused email address even though it had been successfully communicating with the resident by email for the past 18 months, delaying receipt of the response further.
The resident was not satisfied with this response from the landlord and requested her complaint be escalated to stage two. The landlord refused as at 17 days the complaint was already seven days overdue, and the tone of the email was inappropriate, particularly when the repair had been outstanding at this point for 18 months.
The landlord accepted there had been a failing in the handling of the resident’s complaint. It appropriately acknowledged a delay in escalation to stage one from the customer services team and some confusion over the date of the stage two response, for this it awarded, £150.00 compensation. This amount exceeds the maximum pay out for complaints handling in its compensation policy of £100.00. The landlord however, had failed to acknowledge the failure to accept the stage one escalation request. It failed to acknowledge that when it eventually did accept the escalation to stage one, it failed to meet the target time for acknowledgement in its policy. The landlord also failed to acknowledge that it had not met the target time for a stage one response, and the fact that it had refused to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two. Taking all of this into account the £150.00 redress offered in this services view, was insufficient.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint and level of redress offered.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged that there were significant service failings in the handling of the resident’s repair, it has apologised to the resident for those failings and made an offer of compensation in redress. It did not however, acknowledge the service failing in respect of clearing the building debris from the residents property in a reasonable time.
The landlord acknowledged the service failures in the escalation of the complaint to stage one, it apologised and offered in excess of the maximum award for complaint handling in its compensation policy. The landlord demonstrated that it had learnt lessons from the complaint, and amended its processes accordingly. The landlord did not however acknowledge other failings in its complaint handling process; delays in response times and failure to accept complaints. It also failed to address the delay in removing the building debris, in its offer of compensation.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident £250.00 compensation, in addition to the £1,055.51 it has already paid, comprising of
1. £100.00 for the failure to clear the building debris in a reasonable time.
2. £150.00 for the failure to acknowledge all of its complaint handling failures.