Peabody Trust (202217713)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217713

Peabody Trust

30 November 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 response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
2. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied her property alone under an assured tenancy agreement. The flat was the upper storey of a converted house. She reported that she was nearly 70 years old and suffered from a number of physical and mental health conditions including asthma, allergies, and coeliac disease.

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord had an obligation to keep the roof in good repair. In law, the landlord was also an obligation to carry out repairs within a reasonable period. What is reasonable will depend on the seriousness of the disrepair. The resident was obliged to give access to inspect the condition of the property to carry out repairs to the premises or adjoining property. It is assumed that the resident’s neighbour would have been subject to the same tenancy conditions.
In addition, the landlord is expected to meet the home standard set by the Regulator of Social Housing including that it meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing and provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by the Housing Act 2004 which is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards, including damp. The existence of a category 1 hazard is in itself a breach of a social landlord’s legal and regulatory obligations. The landlord also has an obligation to the resident under Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 that the property being occupied is fit for human habitation in relation to the HHSRS standards.
The landlord’s repairs policy set out that routine repairs would be completed within 35 days.
The complaints policy excluded complaints where the issue giving rise to the complaint happened, or was first found, six months previously. An aspect of its “approach” was “so that complaints can be investigated effectively, all complaints should be submitted to it within six months of when the event occurred, or it became known to the complainant.” In exceptional circumstances, it would use its discretion when considering whether to accept a complaint submitted outside of the six-month timescale.

Chronology

According to the resident, the landlord carried out repairs to her roof in or around May 2018. She reported in September 2018 there was an issue with the roof repair.
The landlord provided very little information and documents going back to 2018. The resident provided screenshots of messages including as follows:
1. Email from the resident 3 October 2018 reporting that she had been trying to get her new walls and roof fixed since May 2018. The “new” roof had had three leaks. The wall was not rendered and was letting in damp. She had hoped it would be resolved.
2. Email from the landlord dated 22 August 2018 referring to an inspection on 30 July 2018 and it would carry out remedial works to the bathroom.
3. Email from the resident 1 May 2019 referring to the roof and wall not yet fixed. She was therefore not able to decorate.
4. Email from resident of 4 June 2019 that she had been waiting for repairs for over a year.
5. Email from landlord 4 June 2019 regarding the roof works that were undertaken. The works were under guarantee and therefore should be referred to the original contractor and could only be referred to their own contractor if they were unable to take any steps should that invalidate the guarantee.
6. Email from the resident 8 October 2019 that scaffolding was up but the works had not been carried out. “every time it rains” referring to getting her home dry.
On 12 October 2019, the resident made a complaint that she had not heard back from the landlord regarding her roof, even though the scaffolding had been up for 10 weeks. It was getting on for two years that she had been awaiting roof work/bathroom wall. She said requested an assessment of “how bad” it was. The bathroom wall was “getting worse by the day”. The landlord replied the following day referring to the delays to the roof leak. It had chased the contractors. She made a further complaint in December 2019 regarding the roof leak and water damage to her bathroom wall. No repairs were carried out due to the landlord not being able to gain access to the garden of the lower flat to erect scaffolding. She was told that the landlord would look into erecting scaffolding over the neighbours adjoining back gardens.
Further screenshots from the resident included:
1. An undated extract of an email from the landlord possibly 23 June 2020 referring to taking the legal route to gain entry.
2. An email from the resident 7 September 2020 that she was putting up with a “wet home”. She referred to scaffolding going over the garden of the neighbour downstairs.
The resident also provided photographs showing the property back to brick in 2015 and others of water damage to the kitchen and bathroom, which were post 2018 but without specific dates.
The landlord provided limited repair records. The only references to the roof in those records were as follows: In July 2019, the landlord’s contractor identified water ingress in the kitchen. It could not get access to the lower flat. The resident explained access was an issue. In August 2019, the records referred to a damp patch on a wall and leaking to the bathroom and hallway. The roof “seemed to” be leaking, causing a damp issue where the back addition met the main roof, possibly from lead flashings. The roofer would need to confirm whether there was defect which would affect the warranty of the roof and provide a report. There were discussions about requiring access to the lower flat and how to achieve this.
There were various reports of no asbestos in the property but no further reference to the roof. The records ended in April 2022.
Other than the resident’s email of 12 October 2019, the landlord did not provide the 2019 complaint correspondence to this Service, despite a specific request from this Service to do so. The landlord’s evidence began largely from March 2022.
Throughout the process, the resident chased for the works to be done.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 March 2022 that it had arranged for repairs to be carried out but that, as she was aware, it was having access issues which she had highlighted from the outset. It would update her further.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 8 April 2022 that scaffolding was to be erected on 19 April 2022. It wrote again on 9 May 2022, that scaffolding would be erected on 16 May 2022 and on 8 June 2022, scaffolding would be erected on 13 June 2022. None was erected.
On 25 May 2022, the landlord received a complaint from the resident. She reported during a subsequent phone call that she had had a new roof and walls in her bathroom installed four years previously and that she had been chasing repairs ever since, as the leak was still occurring in the bathroom. She had had three surveyors visit in the previous three years and she still did not know when they were going to do the repair.
The landlord replied with its Stage 1 response on 10 June 2022 as follows:
1. According to its policy, it would only investigate issues that had been going back 6 months.
2. Works to repair the leak were outstanding. The landlord had raised works to the bathroom and to check the roof on 19 January 2022. It would have to stop the roof leak prior to carrying out works to the bathroom. The neighbour was not allowing access.
3. It had arranged for the contractor to erect scaffolding on 13 June 2022. The works were five weeks overdue and repairs to the tiles, shower and bathroom ceiling and floorboards remained outstanding.
4. It was “currently taking legal action for access”.
5. It noted that she had chased the repair on numerous occasions and that it had continued to state it could not do the works until the neighbour allowed access.
6. The standard of customer service and customer care had fallen below what it aimed to deliver.
7. It apologised for the (negative) impact on her.
8. It set out some “complaint learning”. As a result, it would carry out further staff training on record keeping and keeping residents updated.
9. The work should have been followed up after the previous surveyor had left his employment with the landlord.
10. The next steps was to complete the outstanding repairs. It would erect the scaffolding on 13 June 2022 and refurbish the bathroom after the roof repair had been carried out.
11. It would monitor the case until the works were completed.
12. It would then calculate an offer of compensation.
On 29 June 2022, the landlord noted that it had last updated the resident in March 2022. It made enquiries with the contractors who stated that it had attended the neighbour’s property in order to erect scaffolding on 13 June 2022 but could not gain access. The landlord requested from the contractor the copy correspondence to the neighbour.
There were further internal chasers in June and July 2022.
Further internal emails on 10 August 2022 referred to there having been similar issues the year before. The legal team had advised it was unable to consider legal action at that time. It enquired about the background and whether it had considered any action to obtain access as the neighbour “seemed” to be in breach of their tenancy by refusing access. There were references to a neighbour dispute which may have contributed to the neighbour’s resistance to agreeing to access and the resident having played a part in the difficulties.
The legal team set out a process the landlord should follow preparatory to taking legal action, including writing to the neighbour a specified number of times (initially twice and subsequently three times), attempting to gain access and keep records. It referred to advice provided the previous year.
The advice on what steps to take were shared internally, including with the legal team, complaints and surveyors. It suggested that the issues, while repair related, were blocked due to tenancy management, ASB, and housing issues. There were a number of internal emails of 16 August 2022. They referred to the access issue going back to 2019 and to correspondence and arrangements made since October 2021. The landlord teams sought “clear guidance” which the legal team provided as before. The landlord considered alternatives to scaffolding, such as a cherry picker or abseilers. It stated that it needed to start the contact process again as no letters had been sent. It noted that contractors “often neglect to obtain the no access evidence by way of photo of the door of the property at the relevant appointment time which impacts the ability to escalate”.
On 17 August 2022, the “attached letters” were sent to the legal team requesting advice. Those letters were not provided to this Service.
On 24 August 2022, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated. In terms of outcome, the resident wanted the landlord to respond. There were further internal emails regarding legal action and issuing an injunction against the neighbour.
On 30 August 2022, the landlord wrote with its follow up to its Stage 1 complaint response as follows:
1. The landlord was arranging access into the garden of the lower flat to erect scaffolding. It had been unable to obtain access. It had considered alternative approaches for access to the roof, including using a cherry picker or by using abseilers but these alternatives were not viable. Scaffolding was therefore the only available option to carry out works to the roof and external walls is via scaffolding. Its contractor would write to her and her neighbour to arrange a date for works to begin. It would then address the bathroom works.
2. If it was unable to obtain access, it would consider other options to enable access. It apologised. It was “possible that more could have potentially been done”, “the difficulties with gaining access may not have been fully apparent or obvious”. It did not identify a failure in service “from a repairs perspective.”
3. If required, its legal team would “take ownership” of the case. As the failure in service did not relate to any lack of action from its contractors or its surveying team, it was unable to investigate the case further at stage one of its responsive repairs complaints process.
4. It had been unable to put a satisfactory and robust resolution in place. It offered £225 for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience.
On 1 September 2022, the resident requested that the complaint be escalated on the basis that the landlord was to go down the “legal route” in 2020 when the final stage response at the time promised the legal route. The sum of £225 was not enough.
On 4 September 2022, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. The alternative ways to access the roof and external wall were not viable. It had continued to try and work with her neighbour for access. This became “a tenancy management concern”. It had sent the neighbour a “warning letter”. It had sought advice from its legal team. The refusal to give access was deemed to be a breach of tenancy. Due to this lack of access, the works had become unreasonably protracted.
2. The works had been raised in January 2022.
3. It accepted that it had not updated her on what actions the landlord could take. “This was very poor service”. It apologised. It was mindful that it was impacting her daily living conditions. Its legal team stated that the surveying team had been instructed to provide them with information to instigate the legal process to gain access.
4. It had asked the surveying team to maintain communication with her about this progress and to keep the records updated.
5. It apologised for the delay in providing the Stage 2 response due to the relevant staff member being away from the office and a lack of communication on their return. It acknowledged the service was poor, and this could make the resident feel less confident in the landlord’s management of the repairs. It apologised that the process had become so protracted.
6. There had been no failing in attempting to do repairs, it should not have taken as long for the landlord to consider instigating the legal process to gain access.
7. It would “feed back to the business areas concerned” the importance of communication when managing residents’ expectations and would recommend more internal collaboration.
8. It revised the amount upwards because she had continued to be inconvenienced. It offered £650, comprising of £450 for her time, trouble, and inconvenience whilst pursuing the repairs, £100 for complaint handling due to the delays to provide a stage 2 response and £100 for the lack of communication.
Internal communications continued in October and November 2022, with the complaints officer chasing progress, referring to next steps being legal action, and that the case had been “going round in circles for several months, if not longer”. However, the necessary steps had not been taken in order to take legal action.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 October 2022 stating that “The next step is still to apply for an injunction to “force access” through (the) neighbour’s property, I believe”.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for progress, referring to her property leaking in the same places since 2018 and her medical conditions. She said she wanted a “normal and peaceful home”.
Following on–line contact by the resident at the end of November 2022, there was a further reference to contacting its legal team, the contractor and the neighbour.
On 29 December 2022, the complaints officer chased the legal team referring to social media platforms. She had understood that the surveyor team had sent the referral to start the legal process. The legal team responded on 4 January 2023 that it had not received any further referrals. It repeated its advice on the process.
The internal emails in February 2022 showed its complaints officer chasing its legal department, referring to social media and this Service, who would not be “pleased” as it was meant to be monitoring the case. It was now known whether the contractor or surveyor had sent access letters. On each occasion, the legal team repeated the same advice in response.
The resident continued to chase including referring to, on 13 March 2023, continuing leaks and, on 17 March 2023, that her life was “on hold”.
On 17 March 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident stating it would issue a formal warning if she continued to contact it with the same frequency.
There were further internal emails with the complaints officer chasing the area manager, who said she was not aware of the issues, then asked the neighbourhood manager to take steps and update the complaints officer, and the complaints officer for copies of the access request letters sent to date and explain what works were required. The neighbourhood manager tried to call the neighbour and then wrote to the neighbour, stating that if he did not give access, “a formal warning would be issued”, but not citing any specific appointment time.
On 5 April 2023, following further contact from the resident, the complaints officer chased internally. The case had been ongoing “for an unreasonable length of time”. Once access was gained, it would review any compensation that was originally offered in the Stage 2 response.
The resident continued to make online reports.
On 20 April 2023, the landlord wrote to the neighbour, as follows:
1. It referred to a clause in his tenancy agreement stating that the neighbour had an obligation to “allow people working for us to enter … to carry out inspections, repairs, and other work to your property or to neighbouring properties”.
2. If he did not arrange access by 28 April 2023, it would issue a second formal warning.
On 20 April 2023, following an email from the resident, the complaints officer chased internally, referring to making a referral to the legal team, the resident’s presence on social media and possible “scrutiny” by this Service. All the complaints officer could do was monitor the position and could not keep telling the resident it was monitoring if nothing was moving forward. She indicated some proposed next steps.
The neighbourhood manager reported internally on the same day that she had spoken to the neighbour, who said he refused access as he was unhappy about other issues connected with the landlord and had allowed access for the same repair to be carried out around 8 times previously. The landlord wrote to the neighbour stating that he did not allow access by 28 April 2023, it would issue a “second formal warning” and issue a final warning after seven days and then seek legal advice. A head of service escalated the case to the managing director, referred to the need for “a joined-up approach”, again citing this Service and social media. The response was to refer to the legal team. On 26 April 2023, the area manager’s internal email summarised the position and steps as advised by the legal team. There was further internal emails along similar lines.
On 9 May 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident referring to its formal warning letter about her “excessive contact”, and in that context referred to her “threat” to harm herself leading to the landlord making a safeguarding referral to adult social services and also requesting a police welfare check. It referred again to the difficulties of access. It had sent a formal warning letter for non-access and had been referred to its legal department for non-access / breach of tenancy for “a possible forced entry”. It could take a considerable amount of time to get access via a forced entry. It had asked the surveyor to contact the contractor “immediately” to request that the scaffolding could be carried “above and over” the property to remove the need to get access to her neighbour’s property.
The resident wrote on 9 May 2023 that she was “sorry not to be happy about the update (but she had) heard it all before”. She requested to see the warning letter to the neighbour.
There were further internal emails and with the contractor regarding erecting “up and over” scaffolding. The landlord wrote on 12 May 2023, notifying the neighbour that “up and over” scaffolding would be erected.
There was an exchange between the resident and its frontline complaint officers on 17 May 2023. It could not log a complaint that has passed over 6 months. It cited the complaints policy. It had checked her account “there was a repair raised with its contractor but was refused works as (she had) an on-going court case with the resident below and she did not want any works carried out. On 19 May 2023, the landlord apologised for the incorrect information and asked her to let it know if “anything goes wrong” includng if her neighbour again refused to allow scaffolding to be erected.
Following advice from Citizens Advice, the resident wrote to the landlord on 31 May 2023 that further to her letter of 18 May 2023, the roof leak had also caused damage in the kitchen where the plaster was gradually coming off the walls, the inconvenience and stress had affected her mental health to the extent she did not go out. She was not able to decorate her home or live a normal life, including that she could not have visitors due to the disrepair. She attached pictures of the damage to the bathroom and kitchen.
The resident sent further emails setting out the impact on her of the unresolved repairs.
On 9 June 2023, the resident stated that she had used her life savings for the refurbishment of the kitchen, and the landlord had fitted it badly. She was nearly 70 years old and could not “take any more upheaval/unhappiness”. The landlord did not know why the new roof leaked.
After some further difficulties, the scaffolding was erected on 16 June 2023 and the inspection was to have taken place by early the following week.
The landlord reported to this Service on 21 November 2023 that it had offered no additional compensation, as it was awaiting reports of completion. It did not report on what works had been carried out. Further works to the resident’s windows were due to take place.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Paragraph 43 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme Housing-Ombudsman-Scheme.pdf states that the Ombudsman will determine complaints by what is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Paragraph 44 states that the Ombudsman will decide how to consider and investigate complaints subject to the Scheme, taking account of the evidence of failure presented.
The resident’s complaint was that works to the roof carried out in 2018 were not satisfactory. The evidence showed that she was experiencing and reported issues with her new roof in October 2018, if not May of that year. She also reported that the poor condition of her property dated back to 2005. Given the resident’s reference to scaffolding in 2019 and the neighbour’s reference to eight inspections using scaffolding, there had been inspections but no progress with the repairs. Internal discussions showed access issues were discussed in 2019, using “the legal route” in order to erect scaffolding was discussed in 2020 and access arrangements since October 2021. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman does not consider that the issues only dated back to January 2022 but earlier. The Ombudsman also considers that the events prior to 2018 were historical and predated the 2018 repairs. There was no evidence that the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint of October 2019. The Ombudsman considers that, given the impact of the case on the resident, the lack of progress and that this was one single continuing event, it would be fair to consider the history of the case, in terms of its context and the impact on the resident.

The roof repairs.

The Ombudsman finds that the landlord had been aware of the issues of access for some time, given its experience in previous years. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had highlighted the issues “from the beginning” and the legal team referred to internal correspondence where it had provided guidance in 2021. There was no explanation why the landlord’s efforts to seek access did not begin earlier in 2022 than April of that year. The landlord’s contractor wrote to the neighbour on three successive occasions in April to June 2022. There was no evidence that the contractor actually attended the property or that this was followed up by the landlord. This was a lost opportunity.
The legal team provided the same consistent advice on a number of occasions throughout 2022 and into 2023 about how to approach seeking access and what preliminary steps were required before any legal action could be taken. The advice was reasonable as the landlord would need to show to the court that it had attempted to gain access, and an injunction was a proportionate step in the circumstances. The evidence shows a pattern where the resident would make contact or post on social media and the complaints officer would chase internally. The complaints officer could do little herself but chase. There followed internal discussions, the landlord would seek to refer the case to the legal team and the legal team would repeat its guidance, only differing on one occasion whether to make two or three attempts to access. The guidance was clear, it was also clearly understood and yet it was never followed.
In March 2023, there was a flurry of activity as the matter was escalated. Directions were issued internally, some less accurate than others. The landlord continued to refer to “forced entry”, for example in in October 2022 and May 2023. Even when taken up by the neighbourhood manager, the landlord’s letter did not follow the guidance. Despite references to a “joined-up approach”, there was no evidence of such an approach or that anyone took ownership to ensure steps were followed through, including communicating with the contractors. The legal team had described the situation accurately as the matter “going round in circles”. This was highly unsatisfactory. As a result, no progress was made for at least a year.
Not only was this unreasonable but it was also unreasonable that the steps were initiated by the resident posting on social media and the landlord’s concern about an investigation by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have followed the matters up in any event, given the landlord’s obligations and out of concern for the resident herself, who expressed extreme distress and frustration.
The landlord is referred to paragraph 52(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that this investigation will consider whether the landlord has “treated the complainant personally in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic or inappropriate manner”. There was little or no appreciation of the resident’s experience and of the conditions under which she was living, or of its obligations. The lack of understanding and empathy was demonstrated by the landlord issuing a warning letter to the resident for her “excessive“ contact. While a landlord is entitled to seek to curb excessive contact from a resident, in these circumstances, it should have addressed the underlying causes and not simply because it was concerned about reputational damage. The landlord seemed unable to differentiate between a genuine complaint, and a resident being persistent for the sale of it. The Ombudsman also notes the contrast between the promptness with which it sent warnings to the resident and the way it followed up the access letters to the neighbour.
There was a lack of empathy following its referral to safeguarding and no evidence that this was followed up by the landlord. The Ombudsman was particularly concerned at the landlord’s approach in its email of 9 May 2023, which referred to the resident’s vulnerable frame of mind in the context of a contact restriction. This demonstrated a concerning lack of sensitivity. Given the length of time this matter had been going on for, and the gravity, this was highly unreasonable and inappropriate.
It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged its failings in communication. However, there was no evidence that it improved.
In the meantime, the landlord continued to tell the resident that the case was being monitored and it was seeking access. The complaints officer summarised the position that she could not continue to state it was being monitored (for example October 2022) if nothing was progressing. It was not surprising that the resident stated in May 2023 that she had “heard it all before”.
It was reasonable of the landlord to consider alternative approaches to erecting scaffolding, but unreasonable that it had not done so sooner, in particular if it had been considered prior to September 2020. The evidence indicated that considering the “up and over” scaffolding helped the situation. There was no evidence in 2022-3 that the refusal by the neighbour to grant access was attributable to the resident.
It is limited what the Ombudsman can determine from photographs in particular if they are not dated. However, the Ombudsman notes that they showed water damage. The Ombudsman does not make findings in relation to impact on a resident’s health conditions, as it lacks the proper expertise to do so. However, he has considered the resident’s communications with the landlord, her referrals to the impact on her including her referral to a wet home in September 2020, describing damage to her kitchen and bathroom, her plea for a quiet life, the impact on the quality of her home and quality of life, the wasted funds, her distress, she was nearly 70 and in poor health, and her physical and mental vulnerability.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord’s offer of £550 in relation to the roof repairs and poor communication was sufficient. The Ombudsman has taken into account the difficulties regarding access and that the landlord needed to establish whether the roof was within its guarantee period. However, the evidence showed that the delays were largely attributable to the landlord’s lack of concerted action. The position in April 2023, for example, had not progressed since April 2022. While the effect on the resident and her property was progressive, the impact on the condition of the property and on the resident herself was significant, Given those factors, the landlord’s treatment of the resident, and how long the issues had been unresolved, the Ombudsman finds there was severe maladministration in relation to the repairs to the roof.
The Ombudsman makes an order for compensation that takes into account the steps that the landlord took, the difficulties of access, the progressive effect of the disrepair, the impact on the resident’s kitchen and bathroom, and the impact on the resident and her quality of life, in particular given her vulnerabilities.
As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is obliged to provide copies of any information requested by this Service. This includes internal files, documents, correspondence and records. The landlord has failed to provide this Service with all relevant records. Where it has and in the absence of other contemporaneous evidence, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it took sufficient action following the resident’s report of a roof leak in 2018. The order for compensation will reflect this approach.

Complaint handling

It was unreasonable that the landlord did not consider events prior to January 2022 and to limit the complaint handling to six months prior to the complaint. It was also unreasonable that in May 2023, it responded with stating that it would not log a complaint that had passed six months old. This indicated an absolute refusal to consider departing from its policy and a failure to take into account the discretion in its own policy. The landlord then failed to review its position at Stage 2 of the complaints process.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s complaint policy states that the landlord would not investigate issues that had been going back 6 months. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to apply its discretion, as set out elsewhere in its policy. In this case, the issues were still active and had been active for a considerable period. It should have looked at the length of time that the issues had been ongoing, the nature of those issues and only then consider whether to limit itself. There was no evidence that it did so. Its strict application prevented the landlord from understanding the circumstances and understanding the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman’s view is that it was unreasonable not to consider the history of the complaint, if only for context, and to consider whether it should have investigated the history. Moreover, the policy itself is confusing, with one place referring to a blanket rule and in another, referring to it applying its discretion in exceptional circumstances.
The Ombudsman has already commented on the landlord’s approach to complaints in investigation reports 201913340 and 20211841. Those comments are endorsed in this report including that:
1. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code has guidance on what can be excluded from complaint handling where a problem originally occurred more than six months ago. “Where the problem is a recurring issue, the landlord should consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint if this will help to resolve the issue for the resident.
2. If a resident raises a complaint about an issue that was resolved more than six months ago, the landlord could reasonably conclude that the resident should have raised the complaint earlier unless there were exceptional circumstances. However, the landlord’s application of its policy creates an outcome that makes it impossible for residents to complain that any issue has taken longer than six months to resolve. It should not disregard reports of issues that remain unresolved after six months.
It is noted that the landlord has informed this Service that it had moved to a centralised complaint handling team of specialised, experienced caseworkers and delivered “extensive training”.
It is also noted that the landlord’s complaint handling self-assessment on its website states that: “As part of our ongoing complaints training, we recently focused on factors to consider when complaints are submitted beyond the 6 months considered reasonable under the terms of our policy, the Ombudsman Scheme and the Code”. However, the wording of the complaints policy itself has not changed.
In terms of the complaint responses themselves, the first complaint response stated that it was “currently taking legal action for access”. There was no evidence that was the case. The evidence showed that it had written to the neighbour asking for access on 13 June 2022. At most, it was only considering legal action. It was an unreasonable approach to make the distinction between whether this was a repairs complaint or a complaint about neighbourhood management. Which team was responsible was irrelevant equally to the resident or to the result. This was a failure by the landlord as a whole.
Despite checking the records for the resident, the landlord misconstrued the complaint in May 2023. While it reasonably corrected itself two days later, the response still did not reflect the complexity of the case. It would not be expected that the frontline staff would have knowledge of the case but indicated there was an issue with the record keeping. While it is right to manage expectations, in referring to its six-month limitation to complaints, the landlord should avoid giving the impression of gatekeeping a complaint.
There were benefits to the complaints handling. While focussed on reputational damage, it recognised the unreasonableness of the delays, and sought to press for progress. While the landlord should have done so sooner, it eventually escalated the matter in March 2023. It expressed appreciation for the resident’s living conditions and acknowledged the delays and its lack of communication as well as the impact on the landlord resident relationship. It considered reviewing the level of compensation but at the time of this report, has not done so.
The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s offer of £100 in relation to the landlord’s delay to the Stage 2 response was not, in the circumstances, sufficient and that, for the above reasons, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Record keeping.

This report identified a number of gaps in the documents. The landlord did not provide all the documents this Service requested. The repair records appeared to be incomplete. This hampered the investigation. This was also a reflection of the level of review carried out by the complaints team. It may also be an explanation why the landlord did not appear to have kept track of previous, or current, events, including difficulties over access, that the legal team had previously provided advice and why the works were not followed up when as the surveyor team changed. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving leaks and repairs. As a result of these; a wider order has been issued to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
The landlord has been ordered to carry out a review, within 12 weeks of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to leaks, damp and mould. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases and so the learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202122259. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the roof repairs.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The resident reported that, following repairs, her roof leaked from 2018 onwards. It impacted on the condition of her property and her quality of life. The evidence showed that delays were caused by the landlord failing to take recommended steps and a systematic approach so that it had made no progress at all in 2022/2023, despite this being ongoing since 2018. The landlord also demonstrated a lack of focus and empathy for the resident.
The landlord failed to consider the history and context of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord failed to provide comprehensive records which was in the Ombudsman’s view, a reflection on the landlord’s failure to progress the repairs.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 3 weeks of this report, the landlord to provide the Ombudsman and the resident with a schedule of outstanding works, including remedial works, which it must carry out, within reasonable timescales not exceeding 31 January 2024.
2. The landlord to consider an offer of further compensation, should the works not be completed by 31 January 2024, and within 4 weeks of this report, set out its intentions to the resident and the Ombudsman in that regard.
3. Within 4 weeks of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord’s chief executive to apologise to the resident, with a copy to the Ombudsman.
4. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord to pay the resident the sum of £7,700 as follows:
  1. The sum of £7,200 to include the £550 already offered in relation to the roof repairs.
  2. The sum of £400 to include the £100 already offered in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The sum of £100 in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
5. Within 12 weeks of this report, the landlord should carry out a review of the findings in this report, such review to be incorporated in the review in case 202122259, including with an action plan of how it intends to address the failings identified in this report including:
  1. How it manages works involving different teams to ensure ownership of works.
  2. How it monitors works so that repairs do not “drift”.
  3. Developing an approach on exercising its discretion on considering complaints about events that are more than 6 months old.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 12 weeks of this report respectively.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendation:
1. The landlord should ensure that it considers whether to investigate a complaint beyond 6 months prior to the complaint. It should also consider amending its complaint policy to bring it in line with its self-assessment and to clarify that it may apply discretion to its exclusions.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.