The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Peabody Trust (202213466)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213466

Peabody Trust

28 March 2024


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 resident’s complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of requests for repairs in response to a leak from her property, including flooring in her kitchen and hallway.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, including concerns about potential breaches of data protection law.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy for a 2-bed flat in a block of flats. She lives there with her partner and 2 young children. The resident has told this Service that her youngest child is autistic. The landlord has no vulnerabilities on file for this property.
  2. The resident obtained this property in 2015 after a mutual exchange with another social housing tenant.

Repairs

  1. In November 2021, a number of contractors visited the resident’s flat following reports of a leak into the flat below. There was a great deal of investigative work during this month to determine the source of the leak and what work was needed to put things right. A gas contractor advised the resident on 16 November 2021 to keep the heating off while the leak was being investigated.
  2. In December 2021, the resident told the landlord the following:
    1. The leak had started again.
    2. A number of contractors had been out but had not been able to fix the issue.
    3. Contractors would tell the neighbour in the flat below one thing and tell the resident something different. The landlord’s call centre had muddled her up with her neighbour and had said ‘unkind things’ about the resident, thinking they were being said to the neighbour.
    4. The landlord had called the resident in the middle of the night, threatening to get the fire brigade to force access. The resident had found this upsetting as she felt she had allowed access to the landlord.
    5. The relationship between the resident and her neighbour had got much worse due to the ongoing leak and issues around access.
  3. More contractors visited the resident’s flat in December 2021, eventually identifying the source of the leak and taking steps to resolve it. The landlord provided dehumidifiers to the resident and identified that the resident’s kitchen floor and hallway were affected and needed repairing.
  4. In January 2022, the resident raised concerns that there was a hole left in her floor covered loosely by a plywood board in an unsafe manner, and that she was worried that her children would fall through it. She told the landlord that the contractor who attended had told her that neither her nor her children should walk on the board or on the exposed flooring as they might fall through the floor.
  5. There was a subsequent dispute over whether the landlord had an obligation to replace lino in the resident’s kitchen and laminate flooring in the hallway after the floor was repaired. The landlord initially told the resident that it would not replace either of these as both had been installed by the resident. The resident told the landlord that the previous tenant had installed the flooring and that the landlord had been aware of this due to checks during the mutual exchange process.
  6. The landlord eventually agreed to replace lino in the kitchen after repairs to the floor but refused to replace laminate in the hallway. Contractors did do some work to replace laminate, but evidence provided by the resident shows that this was a partial attempt with many gaps left in the flooring. The landlord’s records state that repairs to the flooring and replacement of lino/laminate were completed in August 2022, although later emails suggest that full repairs were completed on 15 September 2022.

Complaint

  1. The resident attempted to raise a formal complaint about how the leak had been handled, along with associated issues, on several occasions between November 2021 and January 2022.
  2. The landlord gave the resident an ‘interim’ stage 1 response on 14 February 2022 which stated that the complaint was about the amount of time it took to repair the leak, poor customer service (including a potential breach of data protection law), missed appointments, loss of use of some of the resident’s property while the leak was going on, and what works were needed to repair damaged flooring. The landlord asked the resident for any emails she had where contractors had refused to fix the flooring, refused to make the resident’s suggested compensation offer of £6,500, explained it was looking into the alleged data breach, and told the resident that it now had 10 working days to resolve her complaint.
  3. There was a great deal of correspondence between the resident and the landlord concerning the stage 1 investigation, with the resident providing clarification on a number of points relating to her complaint. The resident repeatedly asked for contact via email as she was not able to answer her phone during the day because of her commitments at work.
  4. A Stage 1 response was given to the resident on 18 May 2022. This stated that the resident had made a complaint on 7 February about the landlord’s handling of the leak. It acknowledged that the leak had taken too long to resolve but that it believed this had been made worse due to issues with access to the resident’s property and a lack of contact, and that works were still required to replace lino in the kitchen. A total of £550 was offered by the landlord as compensation – £400 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident by delays in carrying out repairs; £150 for delays and poor customer service.
  5. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 23 May 2022. She told the landlord that she had asked for this as she disputed that she did not allow access, that the landlord had tried to call her several times despite her asking to keep contact to email only, that no inspection of the floor after the leak had taken place, and that the landlord had not properly applied its compensation policy in its Stage 1 response. The resident made it clear that she wanted the quality of repairs and how flooring was left considered at Stage 2.
  6. An acknowledgement of the escalation request was sent to the resident on 26 May 2022, which stated that a Stage 2 response would be given by 20 June 2022. The acknowledgement contained personal information about the neighbour, stated that the leak had been resolved fairly quickly, delays were due to access issues, that the landlord would not carry out further repairs to the resident’s flat, compensation had been refused by the resident, and that the resident’s expectations had been unreasonable from the outset. The acknowledgement also stated that only issues which had been considered at Stage 1 could be considered at Stage 2. The resident was asked to confirm the complaint definition and give any new information within 5 days.
  7. The resident replied on 26 May 2022, querying the language used in the landlord’s acknowledgement of the escalation request and explained that she felt it was unprofessional and judgemental against her. A day later, the landlord confirmed that handling of the stage 1 complaint would also be investigated at stage 2.
  8. The landlord contacted the resident on 22 June 2022, apologised for delays in providing a stage 2 response, and asked whether contractors had been in touch about repairs to the flooring. The resident responded on the same day, stating that neither the landlord nor any contractors had been in touch about assessing or repairing her kitchen floor.
  9. A stage 2 response was provided on 23 June 2022. It acknowledged that the landlord had failed to record several complaints raised by the resident between 24 November 2021 and 16 January 2022, that the resident and her neighbour had both been responsive to requests for access, that contractors had sometimes been late but all emergency callouts had been attended, that the leak had been repaired out of timescale, and that the landlord had not properly applied its compensation policy at stage 1. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £908 to reflect costs of running dehumidifiers, loss of hot water and heating for 13 days, multiple appointments for repairs which were unnecessary, and for failings in how the resident’s complaint was handled. It also agreed to inspect the resident’s flooring and repair or replace the lino flooring in the resident’s kitchen.
  10. The resident replied to the stage 2 response on 26 June 2022, expressing concern that it did not consider whether works had been left in a safe condition given the fact that children were living at the property, and that the alleged data breach had not been considered. She also raised concerns that the landlord had not considered whether to repair or replace laminate in the hallway despite it being taken up by the landlord’s contractors.
  11. The landlord responded to the resident on 25 August 2022, after the resident made enquiries about a response on 16 August 2022. Its response stated that detailed information had been given about the laminate flooring in the landlord’s stage 1 response and that it did not have to replace this if it had been installed without permission, recommending that the resident made a claim under her home contents insurance. The resident was asked what her desired outcome was so the landlord could see whether it could meet her expectations.
  12. In her reply to the landlord’s email, the resident stated again that her primary concern was about how works were left given the fact that children lived in her property and that she had asked the landlord to consider this point.
  13. The landlord responded on 6 September 2022 and stated that it did not think the flooring was dangerous based on the evidence it had. It restated that it did not believe that it had a responsibility to relay the laminate flooring in the hallway as it should not have been laid without permission in the first place. It asked the resident to approach this Service if she wanted further escalation of her complaint. The resident responded on the same day and explained that the flooring had been installed by the previous tenant, that the original landlord had inspected the property and been happy with the flooring, that repairs after investigation into the leak had been poorly handled as the contractors had been explicitly told not to replace the laminate flooring, and asked that a complaint was raised about how the stage 2 complaint had been handled.
  14. On 15 September 2022, the landlord responded and stated that the contractor had laid new flooring in the resident’s hallway anyway, that it was not heavily involved with mutual exchanges, that its stage 2 response was based on evidence from records, and that it could not accept a complaint about how the stage 2 complaint was handled. It encouraged the resident to discuss these points with this Service.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. The resident’s complaint includes concerns that there was a breach of the landlord’s obligation to protect personal information about the resident and her neighbour while it was handling repairs to the leak and during the complaints process. Complaints about breaches of data protection law are within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Therefore, under paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service will not consider whether there has been a breach of data protection legislation or ICO guidance, as this falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. If the resident remains concerned about this, she can bring her complaint to the ICO, which may be able to investigate.

The landlord’s handling of requests for repairs

  1. The landlord’s records state that the resident first made a request for repairs to the leak from her flat on 13 November 2021, with the leak fully resolved on 11 December 2021. Works to repair damage caused by the leak started on 8 December 2021 but were only resolved on 15 September 2022, when the floor underneath the lino and laminate in the kitchen and hallway were fully repaired. Full repairs to the leak and affected areas were therefore completed 212 working days after the initial report on 13 November 2021.
  2. The Ombudsman acknowledges that leaks between properties can take time to successfully resolve, that a great deal of investigative work is can required to pinpoint the cause, and that it can take some time to determine the extent of any remedial works required to fully repair a property after a leak. In this case, it is clear that the landlord responded appropriately at first in trying to arrange for the leak to be contained and identifying the root cause.
  3. When it became clearer that considerable works were required to tackle the leak and resolve damage caused to both the resident’s and the neighbour’s flat, as well as the fact that the leak was causing tension between the resident and her neighbour, the landlord should have considered appointing an officer as a single point of contact for issues relating to the leak and to provide oversight of repairs. This may have avoided some of the issues with repeated visits by contractors who were not able to carry out works, ensured that contractors responsible for different repairs attended at the same time to carry out works which were interlinked (such as lifting a floor and carrying out a gas inspection at the same time), coordinated repairs in the two properties, and reassured the resident that her concerns were being taken seriously with appropriate action arranged. The landlord should also have considered whether to offer mediation between the resident and her neighbour to help repair their relationship.
  4. Evidence provided by the landlord and the resident shows that several contractors attended between November and December 2021, with the resident granting access each time. Notes from contractors state that the resident was sometimes reluctant to allow works to be carried out unless she was given an assurance that the worksite would be left in a safe manner or that repairs would be done in a sensible and logical manner (for example, a floor lifted before a gas safety inspection of pipes running underneath the flooring). This is understandable as the resident wanted to make sure that her property was left in a ‘good enough’ state pending the completion of repairs, and as she wanted to make sure her children were safe at home. There is no evidence that the resident was obstructive or that her actions caused delays in repairs, with the resident often taking time off work to allow access to contractors. The amount of visits with no resolution would have been frustrating for the resident and affected her use and enjoyment of her home.
  5. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns over the safety of worksites where repairs were in progress but could not be resolved on the same day. Evidence from the landlord shows that the resident explained on several occasions that she had small children and that she was concerned about their safety. Photographs from January 2022 of the hole in the hallway floor by the kitchen entrance show an unsecured temporary plywood cover which could have been easily removed by an inquisitive child. The landlord should have listened to the resident’s concerns and looked into what measures could have been put in place to help mitigate against any risks while repairs were being carried out. This failure would have been frustrating for the resident and raised concerns that the landlord did not have proper regard for the safety of her children during repair works.
  6. The landlord did not do enough at an early stage to check what responsibilities it had to repair damage caused by the leak. Evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord was not clear on whether it had an obligation to repair the kitchen and hallway flooring, which led to a dispute between the resident and the landlord about this point and delays in carrying out full repairs to resolve all issues caused by the leak.
  7. It is unfortunate that the landlord decided that it did not have to repair the hallway floor due to its mistaken assumption that the resident had installed laminate flooring in her property without permission. As this flooring had been damaged by contractors during the investigation into the leak, which was not caused by the resident, the landlord should have considered whether it was reasonable to offer to replace the flooring rather than insisting that this was the responsibility of the resident. It is only due as the flooring contractor replaced the laminate hallway floor without instruction from the landlord that this repair was carried out at all. The landlord’s failure to recognise this issue placed an unfair emphasis on the resident proving her case about this point. This would have been frustrating for the resident, especially as there is no evidence that the landlord checked its own records about permissions or checked if the flooring had been installed by a previous tenant.
  8. The delays in carrying out full repairs to the damage caused by the leak, concerns about the safety of children living at the property during repairs, and the impact on the relationship between the resident and her neighbour, would all have been frustrating for the resident. It is positive that the landlord arranged for full repairs to be carried out and offered a total of £708 in compensation for issues that it identified with how it handled repairs, but this Service does not consider this reasonable redress given the extent of the failings identified in this report.
  9. Due to the landlord’s mishandling of repairs to areas affected by the leak, failing to provide a coordinated response to the need for repairs in two properties, failing to address the resident’s concerns about the safety of her children while repairs were carried out, delays in fully completing repairs to areas of the flat affected by the leak, and the landlord’s confusion over whether to put things right after damage to the laminate flooring in the resident’s hallway, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs. This is also due to the adverse impact on the resident for having to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates on repairs, and for time taken off work to allow access to contractors. It is positive that the landlord completed repairs and offered a total of £708 compensation after acknowledging issues with how it handled repairs, but these steps were not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation and did not fully address the detriment posed to the resident by issues with handling repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, including concerns about potential breaches of data protection law

  1. The landlord effectively operated a 3 stage complaints process at the date of the resident’s complaint. When an expression of dissatisfaction was received, the landlord tried to resolve the issue informally. If this did not resolve the issue or if the landlord deemed it inappropriate to handle the issue in this way, it could register the expression as a formal complaint. Stage 1 investigations were carried out by a case manager from a relevant service area, and Stage 2 investigations were carried out by the landlord’s customer experience team.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents are encouraged, but that any efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns should not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or lead to unreasonable delays. When a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at Stage 1 within 5 working days of receipt. The landlord must then provide a Stage 1 response to a complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. On receipt of an escalation request, the landlord must set out its understanding of the issues and what outcome a resident is seeking, and a Stage 2 response provided within 20 working days of the request. The landlord’s complaints policy in operation at the point of the resident’s complaint therefore did not comply with the Complaint Handling Code.
  3. The landlord has introduced a new complaints policy effective from 9 February 2024. The new policy removes the ‘expression of dissatisfaction’ stage and adopts the timescales in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code for responses to complaints.
  4. The landlord admitted in its Stage 2 response that it did not record at least 7 of the resident’s initial complaints made between November 2021 and January 2022, with the earliest complaint being made on 24 November 2021. This is poor customer service and it led the resident to make repeated complaints to try and get the landlord to respond to her concerns.
  5. The landlord’s Stage 1 response stated that the resident’s initial complaint was received on 7 February 2022. Given the background of this case and, as the resident pointed out to the landlord on 18 February 2022 that she had made at least 6 previous attempts at making a complaint, the landlord’s failure to acknowledge this issue would have been frustrating for the resident.
  6. Evidence provided by the landlord shows that the Stage 1 complaint handler attempted to contact the resident by phone several times, despite the resident requesting contact only by email due to her working arrangements. This culminated in the complaint handler telling the resident on 28 April 2022 that he would close her complaint without a resolution if she did not make contact by 9 May 2022. This is poor customer service as it did not acknowledge or accommodate a reasonable request made by the resident about the method of contact, and would have created further doubts for the resident that the landlord would handle her complaint properly.
  7. The Stage 1 response states that complaints at the ‘expression of dissatisfaction’ stage are only escalated when its customer care incident management team have not been able to resolve the issue within 60 days. This is not in line with the landlord’s own complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. As the landlord later admitted to poor complaints handling and not registering the resident’s initial complaints, this aspect of the Stage 1 response may have led the resident to mistakenly believe that there had been no delay to the initial complaint response, although this was acknowledged and put right in the Stage 2 response.
  8. The Stage 1 response was provided on 18 May 2022, 120 working days after the resident’s initial complaint. Even if the Stage 1 complaint handler had been correct that the complaint had been made on 7 February 2022, this still would have been a delay of 70 working days. There was no acknowledgement or apology offered for this delay.
  9. The Stage 1 complaint response refused to acknowledge or investigate the resident’s concerns that there had been a breach of data protection law, did not consider the safety of works as left at the resident’s property despite her requests that this was included in her complaint, and failed to properly apply the landlord’s compensation policy when deciding what level of compensation to offer. This is a failure of the landlord to fully acknowledge the resident’s complaint, a missed opportunity to investigate what may have gone wrong, a failure to apply the landlord’s own policies, and not in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles – to be fair, put things right, and to learn from mistakes. Points regarding application of the compensation policy were addressed in the Stage 2 response.
  10. Although the acknowledgement of the resident’s Stage 2 escalation request was given within 3 working days of the request being made on 23 May 2022, the acknowledgement was not sensitive to the resident’s circumstances and disclosed personal information about her neighbour to the resident. It also explicitly stated that there were ‘no further repairs that are our responsibility’ and that the resident’s ‘expectations have been unreasonable from the outset’. The resident made it clear that she was upset by these comments in correspondence with the landlord, stating that this was unprofessional and judgemental. No response or apology was given to the resident about this issue. This contact with the landlord would have raised serious concerns with the resident as to whether her complaint would be handled in a fair and impartial manner, further undermined the landlord/tenant relationship, and upset the resident.
  11. The Stage 2 response was provided on 23 June 2022, 21 working days after the escalation request. This is a minor failure to provide a response within the time limits set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which was mitigated by the landlord contacting the resident in advance of the deadline to explain that there would be a short delay in issuing a response.
  12. The Stage 2 response properly applied the landlord’s compensation policy to the failings it identified when investigating the complaint, acknowledged issues with registering and handling the resident’s initial complaint, and apologised for delays and issues with complaints handling. It did not address the ongoing issues with repairs to the flooring following the leak, the resident’s concerns over the safety of her property while repairs were carried out, whether the hallway laminate would be repaired, or concerns about breaches of data protection law. However, the landlord did tell the resident on the same day that it would inspect the flooring and repair the lino in the kitchen. Although it is positive that the Stage 2 response corrected many of the issues with the Stage 1 response, this was a missed opportunity to fully review the resident’s complaint and include points which had been omitted at Stage 1.
  13. It is positive that the landlord monitored repairs after the stage 2 response was given to the resident. Evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord’s active involvement in monitoring repairs helped all outstanding works linked to the leak be completed within a few months of the stage 2 response.
  14. The cumulative effect of the landlord’s failings in complaints handling have led to a drawn out process which was not resolution focussed. This has affected the resident’s confidence that the landlord would take her seriously and address the concerns she raised during the complaints process.
  15. Due to the landlord’s failure to fully acknowledge the points that the resident asked to be considered in her complaint, several avoidable delays in recording and acknowledging the initial complaint, delays in complaint responses, failing to address all points raised by the resident in their responses, failing to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about a potential breach of data protection law during the complaints process, and a very poor acknowledgement of escalation request which upset the resident, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. This Service has found the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation for poor complaints handling insufficient to reflect the number and seriousness of the landlord’s failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
  2. Give the resident a written apology from a head of service for the failings identified in this report.
  3. Pay the resident £1,300 in compensation, less any compensation already paid by the landlord in connection to this complaint. This offer consists of:
    1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs, including delays.
    2. £200 for failing to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s concerns about the safety of her children during repairs.
    3. £500 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures as identified in this report as well as the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  4. Assess whether it is appropriate to offer mediation between the resident and her neighbour. This assessment must take the wishes of both parties into account as well as the time which has passed since the leak.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review the incidents highlighted in this report and refer them to its data protection officer if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident and see if she wants details of any personal circumstances and/or health issues experienced by her and her children recorded on her tenancy file.
  3. The landlord should review its repairs policy and consider whether it would be appropriate to appoint an officer as a ‘single point of contact’ in the following scenarios:
    1. Complex repairs which require coordination of works between different contractors.
    2. Where repairs are required for issues affecting more than one property.
    3. Where there is a need to do urgent and large-scale repairs within a short period of time.