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

Peabody Trust (202209178)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209178

Peabody Trust

29 February 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 complaint is about:

  1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom following a reported leak.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the renewal of the back door.
  3. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the driveway.
  4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for her bathroom to be refurbished.
  5. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

2.             The property is a 3–bedroom semi-detached house and the resident has been an assured tenant of the property since 16 June 2012.

3.             The resident advised the landlord that she suffers from severe arthritis in her whole body and her oldest daughter is registered disabled.

4.             Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord must:

  1. Keep in good repair, the structure and exterior of the property including internal wall and ceilings, pathways, steps or other means of access.
  2. Keep in good repair and proper working order…basins, sinks, baths, toilets and waste pipes.

Summary of events

5.             On 11 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of repairs to her property caused by water damage from a leak in 2021. The resident also advised the landlord of the following:

  1. She stated that she was waiting for the landlord to refurbish the bathroom but stated that the landlord kept changing the date for the refurbishment.
  2. A plumber had attended during the previous week (week commencing 3 January 2022) regarding the leak under the bath.
  3. The resident stated that there was mould under the bath, under the linoleum and on the bathroom wall.
  4. The resident stated that she was a chronic asthmatic and had a breathing machine at home. Therefore, the conditions were not good for her health.
  5. The resident requested the landlord to send a surveyor as a matter of urgency.

6.             The landlord sent its stage one reply to the resident on 6 April 2022, in which it stated the following:

  1. It had raised a new repair order on 8 February 2022 as it acknowledged that the bathroom needed to be replaced. The works were approved and had been due to begin on 10 March 2022.
  2. The landlord also raised orders for additional work to be carried out to make good damage caused by the leak. This included repairs to the kitchen units.
  3. The landlord apologised for the lack of communication and inconvenience and upheld the resident’s complaint.
  4. The landlord offered compensation of £350 consisting of:
    1. £150 for distress and inconvenience;
    2. £100 for the delay to the repair;
    3. £50 for the right to repair;
    4. £50 for the delay in the response.

7.             The landlord’s records show that it raised orders on 23 June 2022 to fill holes in the ceiling and carry out painting, renew the bath, renew the back door and to repair the driveway.

8.             The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 30 June 2022, in which it stated the following:

  1. The landlord apologised that it had not communicated with the resident about her complaint since 12 May 2022.
  2. The landlord confirmed it had spoken to the resident on 17 June 2022 and acknowledged that the repairs discussed had not been dealt with despite its previous promise and apologised for this.
  3. The landlord acknowledged and apologised that the repairs mentioned by the resident on 17 June 2022 were still outstanding, despite the landlord’s promise that these would be completed within 5 working days.
  4. The landlord confirmed that it would order a new bath as the existing one had a hairline crack.
  5. The landlord accepted that the wooden back door was warped and was single-glazed and therefore it would order a new UPVC door.
  6. The landlord agreed to repair the gaps and unevenness in the driveway.
  7. The landlord agreed to fill the gaps in the ceilings to the downstairs rooms and repaint the ceilings as the ceilings had been damaged by the water leak.
  8. The landlord advised the resident that it had made an appointment for a contractor to attend on 8 July 2022 to assess when the following works would be carried out:
    1. Fill the holes in the downstairs bathroom ceiling and repaint;
    2. Repaint the ceilings in the utility room and kitchen to cover water damage;
    3. Install a new bath;
    4. Replace the existing back door with a UPVC door; and
    5. Repair the driveway.
  9. The landlord offered the resident £150 as a contribution towards replacing the bathroom floor covering and £50 for the delay in replying to the complaint. These sums were additional to the £350 offered at stage one and therefore the total compensation package was £550.

9.             The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 July 2022 and advised that she was happy with the outcome proposed by the landlord and had already been contacted by the contractor about some of the outstanding repairs.

10.        On 21 July 2022, the contractor wrote to the landlord and confirmed it had visited the resident and the resident had advised that she was now unhappy with the proposed repairs because she wanted the bathroom to be renewed.

11.        The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 July 2022 and pointed out that the resident had agreed on 1 July 2022 to the works set out in the stage 2 reply dated 30 June 2022. The landlord listed the works again and asked the resident to note that the proposal was to renew the bath, which had a hairline crack, rather than to renew the complete bathroom.

12.        The contractor wrote to the landlord on 28 July 2022 and stated that it had visited the property in order to provide a quote for filling the holes in the ceiling and repainting, renewing the bath, renewing the door and repairing the driveway. However, the resident had refused to allow the repairs associated with the bathroom as she wanted a new bathroom.

13.        The resident contacted this Service on 2 August 2022 and confirmed that the back door had been replaced on 1 August 2022. The resident then contacted the Ombudsman on 7 September 2022 to report that the landlord had not contacted her regarding the driveway repairs, the bathroom repairs and the damaged ceilings. She also reported that she had no bath panel and the bath was still leaking due to a hairline crack in the bath.

14.        The resident contacted this Service on 15 October 2022 to confirm that the driveway repairs had been completed on 14 October 2022.

15.        On 14 February 2023, the resident submitted an online complaints form to the landlord stating that she had not been contacted regarding the refurbishment of the bathroom, despite requesting a call back. She stated that the refurbishment of the bathroom had been outstanding since 2019 and she understood that the refurbishment was due to take place in March or April 2023.

16.        An internal email dated 16 February 2023 from the landlord stated that the property was not included in the bathroom replacement programme for 2022/23 or 2023/24. It confirmed that an order had been raised in February 2022 to replace the bath, shower mixer tap and the bathroom lino. However, the job notes dated 19 April 2022 stated that the resident had refused access for an inspection as she said the property had already been inspected 4 times. A further job had then been raised (on 23 June 2022) to replace the bath and the job notes 24 November 2022 stated that the resident had refused the work.

17.        The resident submitted a further online complaint form on 24 February 2023 requesting the landlord to refurbish the bathroom. She reported the following defects:

  1. Holes in the ceilings of some of the downstairs rooms and the need for repainting once the holes have been filled.
  2. Mouldy walls behind the bathroom tiles and some of the tiles were falling off the wall.
  3. There was a hairline crack in the bath, which had been present since 2021.
  4. The bath panel had been missing since 2021.
  5. The floor boards in the bathroom were rotten and the floor covering was damaged as a result of the leak.

18.        In March 2023, the landlord and the resident exchanged further emails regarding the refurbishment of the bathroom. The resident advised the landlord she had been informed that the bathroom was due for refurbishment in March 2023. The resident reported that her neighbours were in the process of having their bathrooms refurbished.

19.        The landlord sent a stage one reply on 13 April 2023, in which it stated that orders had been raised to fill the holes in the ceilings and repaint, to address the mould, to replace the bath and the back door and to repair the driveway. An appointment had been booked for the contractor’s surveyor to attend on 8 July 2022 and the surveyor concluded that the repairs would address the defects reported by the resident. However, the information from the contractor was that the resident had rejected the repairs as she wanted a complete refurbishment. The landlord therefore did not uphold the complaint.

20.        The landlord confirmed in the same letter dated 13 April 2023 that its Asset Team had rejected the resident’s request for a bathroom refurbishment. However, the team was now in contact with the resident to check whether a bathroom refurbishment might be appropriate. The landlord stated, however, that the team might still conclude that repairs were appropriate rather than a full refurbishment.

21.        The landlord wrote to this Service on 19 February 2024 and advised that its Asset team had approved the renewal of the bathroom and cloakroom. The work had therefore been carried out in September 2023. The resident had chosen the colours and materials prior to the bathroom and cloakroom replacement.

22.        The resident advised this Service on 22 February 2024 that the filling and repainting of the holes in the ceiling had been completed just prior to the bathroom replacement. She advised that she was happy with the refurbishment and making good works carried out by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

23.        The landlord’s final response letter dated 30 June 2022 refers to a conversation with the resident on 17 June 2022 during which she referred to damage caused by a leak in the bathroom in 2019. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from the receipt of the resident’s complaint in January 2022. Reference to the events that occurred prior to this date is made in this report to provide context.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom following a reported leak

24.        The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy identifies 2 categories of repairs:

  1. Emergency repairs – these will be attended within 4 hours and made safe within 24 hours.
  2. Routine repairs – residents will be offered the next available appointment for their repair at the point of booking.

25.        The policy also states: “We aim to deliver routine repairs within an average of ten working days. However, some repairs may take longer to resolve, due to their complexity or specialist nature”.

26.        On 11 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord about outstanding repairs to the bathroom. She stated that a plumber had attended during the previous week (week commencing 3 January 2022) regarding a leak under the bath. The resident stated there was mould under the bath, under the lino and on the bathroom wall.

27.        It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether the plumber carried out any work, however, the landlord stated in its stage one complaint reply on 6 April 2022 that it had raised a new repair order on 8 February 2022 to “replace the bathroom” and the work had been due to begin on 10 March 2022. It was unreasonable that there was a delay of over a month between the plumber’s visit during week commencing 3 January 2022 and the landlord raising an order to address the leaking bath. It is clear from subsequent records that the bath had a hairline crack and needed replacement. There is no evidence that the landlord offered the resident the next available appointment to replace the bath as required by its repairs policy.

28.        As the landlord’s stage one letter stated that it intended to renew the bathroom, the resident was entitled to assume that this included the bath and other elements of the bathroom such as the wash hand basin. The landlord’s reply did not offer an explanation as to why the works scheduled to begin on 10 March 2022 had not gone ahead. This was inappropriate as the landlord had missed an opportunity to explain clearly to the resident why the work had not proceeded and to provide a new timetable for carrying out the work. The landlord should also have been clearer about whether the whole bathroom was being renewed or just the bath. The landlord offered compensation of £350 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in carrying out the repairs. £50 of this sum was for the delay in sending the stage one reply and therefore £300 was for the delays to the repairs.

29.        Given that it had been 3 months since the plumber’s visit in January 2022, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise in its stage one reply and to offer compensation. The resident had clearly stated in her complaint dated 11 January 2022 that there was a leak affecting the area under the bath and, as a result, mould was present. She had also advised the landlord that she suffered from chronic asthma and therefore the mould might be affecting her health. The amount offered at that stage was, in the Ombudsman’s view, reasonable to recognise the delay, but the landlord had not put things right by carrying out the repairs or offering a timetable to do the work.

30.        The landlord raised a further order on 23 June 2022 to renew the bath. In its stage 2 reply of 30 June 2022, the landlord apologised for the lack of communication with the resident and apologised that the repairs had not yet been carried out. The landlord confirmed it would order a new bath as the existing one had a hairline crack. It had therefore made an appointment for its contractor to attend on 8 July 2022 to assess the repairs needed. The landlord offered an additional £150 for the further delay in carrying out the repairs to the bathroom.

31.        As the landlord had not yet carried out the repairs and it had been a further 3 months since the landlord sent it stage one reply, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay and offer further compensation. It was also reasonable, given the time that had elapsed, for the landlord to arrange for its contractor to attend in order to assess the extent of the repairs required. The landlord had spoken to the resident on 17 June 2022 to agree the work that would be carried out. As a result, the resident wrote to the landlord on 1 July 2022 and stated she was happy with the arrangements agreed with her.

32.        The information from the landlord and contractor stated that the resident had subsequently advised the contractor in July 2022 that she was unhappy with the work proceeding because she wanted the bathroom to be renewed. The landlord therefore wrote to the resident on 26 July 2022 and set out its proposal to renew the bath rather than the bathroom as a whole. It was reasonable for the landlord to clarify with the resident whether she wanted the work to proceed as she had initially indicated her approval and later stated that she did not want the work to proceed.

33.        The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show that the resident replied to the landlord to confirm it could proceed with the renewal of the bath. The landlord is required under the terms of the tenancy agreement to keep the bath in good repair. There is no requirement under the tenancy agreement to completely refurbish or renew the bathroom. The landlord’s proposal to renew the bath was therefore reasonable as it had established through its contractor that the existing bath could not be repaired due to a hairline crack.

34.        The landlord had written to the resident and asked her whether it could proceed with the work to renew the bath and the resident had not confirmed she would provide access. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s view is that in the circumstances the landlord could not reasonably be expected to renew the bath without the resident’s permission for the work to proceed.

35.        The replacement of the bath was not deemed to constitute an emergency and the resident was not in any immediate danger from the defects. Therefore, is was reasonable that the landlord was seeking to obtain the resident’s consent prior to carrying out the work.

36.        Overall, the landlord accepted there had been delays in progressing the works to the bathroom and therefore in its stage one and stage 2 replies it apologised for the delays and offered compensation of £450. This sum was in the range of compensation specified in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there had been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there was no permanent impact on the resident. This Service has therefore found that the landlord offered reasonable redress to put things right in relation to the delays in renewing the bath and carrying out other repairs to the bathroom. The delays that occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 reply were largely due to the resident wanting the bathroom to be refurbished as opposed to the repairs that the landlord was seeking to carry out.

The landlord’s handling of the renewal of the back door

37.        It is not clear from the evidence when the resident first reported the defects to the back door. For example, it was not mentioned in her complaint dated 11 January 2022. However, the landlord raised an order on 23 June 2022 to renew the back door. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply dated 30 June 2022 that the wooden door was warped. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord had raised an order to replace the door with a UPVC door.

38.        The landlord’s records stated that its contractor had inspected the outstanding repairs on 8 July 2022, including the replacement of the back door, in order to assess the repairs. The back door was replaced on 1 August 2022.

39.        The landlord therefore took 2 weeks to inspect and measure the door from when it raised the order on 23 June 2022 and a further 2 weeks after this to replace the door on 1 August 2022. The replacement of the door would be considered to be specialist in nature as it had to be manufactured to exact specifications. Therefore, it was reasonable for the door replacement to take longer than the 10 working days stipulated in the landlord’s repairs policy for routine repairs. Therefore, given that the UPVC door had to be accurately measured and then manufactured, the timescales for replacing the door were, in the Ombudsman’s view, reasonable.

40.        The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence from the resident to indicate there were problems with the quality of the replacement door. Therefore, overall the view of this service is that the landlord’s handling of the back door replacement was reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the driveway

41.        It is not clear from the evidence when the resident first reported the defects to the driveway. For example, the resident did not include this in her complaint dated 11 January 2022. However, the landlord raised an order on 23 June 2022 to repair the driveway. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply dated 30 June 2022 that there were gaps and unevenness in the driveway. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord had raised an order to repair the driveway.

42.        The landlord’s records stated that the contractor had inspected the outstanding repairs, including the repairs to the driveway, on 8 July 2022 in order to assess the repairs. The landlord therefore took 2 weeks to inspect the driveway from when it raised the order on 23 June 2022. It then took a further 3 months to complete the repairs on 14 October 2022.

43.        The landlord’s contractor carried out an inspection of the driveway, which was reasonable so the contractor could accurately identify and specify the works required. Although the time taken to carry out the driveway repairs was well outside the landlord’s timescale for carrying out repairs and was therefore inappropriate, the time taken was not excessive, taking into account the need for the inspection. The repair was an external repair and the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the defects were causing significant detriment to the resident.  However, the delay in repairing the driveway prompted the resident to contact this Service on 7 September 2022 to report that the landlord had not contacted regarding the driveway repairs.

44.        The lack of communication from the landlord and the delay in carrying out the repair therefore led to the resident spending further time and trouble chasing the repair. Therefore, overall, the Ombudsman has found there was a service failure due to the landlord’s delay in completing the work and lack of progress updates provided by the landlord to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for her bathroom to be refurbished

45.        The Government’s Decent Homes Standard (DHS) states that a decent home should have reasonably modern facilities and services, which includes a reasonably modern bathroom (30 years old or less). However, a home with a bathroom that is over 30 years old would not automatically fail the DHS unless there are at least 2 other facilities that require modernisation. Landlords are able to programme modernisation works in accordance with their priorities and resources in order to ensure their homes meet the DHS.

46.        It is not unusual for landlords to amend their planned or major works programmes. However, where plans are changed this Service would expect landlords to communicate the changes to their residents and provide revised timescales. In 2019, the Ombudsman published a report called Spotlight on Repairs – Room for Improvement, which stated: “Where complex or extensive work is required…[landlords should] explain what action will be taken and provide timescales, even if these are provisional”.

47.        In this case, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord adequately communicated with the resident regarding the planned renewal of her bathroom as part of its refurbishment programme. As a result, the resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord on 14 February 2023 stating that the landlord had not contacted her regarding the refurbishment of the bathroom and that she understood the work was due to take place in March or April 2023.

48.        The lack of communication and mixed messages from the landlord regarding the refurbishment of the bathroom caused uncertainty on the part of the resident. This uncertainty was made worse because the landlord had stated in its stage one reply dated 6 April 2022 that the bathroom needed to be replaced and the works had been approved. Although the landlord made it clear in its stage 2 reply dated 30 June 2022 that it was planning to renew the bath and not the whole bathroom, it still did not take the opportunity to advise the resident of any information regarding the timescale for renewing the complete bathroom under its major works programme. The landlord also failed to explain why its stage one reply had stated that the bathroom was due to be replaced in March 2022.

49.        Based on the lack of communication regarding the bathroom renewal, the Ombudsman has found there was a service failure on the landlord’s part. The finding takes into account that the landlord was not under a legal obligation to refurbish the bathroom. It also takes into account that the landlord had clarified in its stage 2 reply that it planned to renew the bath rather than the bathroom as a whole.

50.        The bathroom was refurbished in September 2023 and the resident has advised this Service that she was happy with the quality of the work carried out.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

51.        The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure:

  1. At stage one (complaint review), the landlord will investigate and respond within 10 working days.
  2. At stage two (appeal), the landlord will inform the resident of the decision of the appeal within 10 working days from the date of the appeal. The procedure states for more complex cases the landlord may require longer than 10 working days to conduct their investigation and provide a response. Should this situation arise, the landlord will notify the customer of the reason(s) for the extension, progress to date and when the customer can expect a full response.

52. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 January 2022 to report that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of repairs to her bathroom. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 6 April 2022, which was 61 working days after the resident submitted her complaint. This was inappropriate as the landlord’s policy states that stage one complaints will be responded to within 10 working days.

53.        In its stage one reply, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding and offered £50 compensation. However, the delay was significantly outside of the landlord’s published timescale and the resident had indicated that the leaking bath and mould were causing her distress due to her chronic asthma. Therefore, the resident was anxious to receive a timely response to her complaint. The Ombudsman welcomes that the landlord offered compensation in an attempt to put things right in terms of the delayed complaint response. However, the view of this Service is that the landlord’s offer of £50 was not proportionate to reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the delay in responding to her complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found there was a service failure and has awarded additional compensation (see below).

54.        This Service has not been able to establish when the resident submitted her stage 2 complaint (despite the Ombudsman requesting this information from the landlord). However, the landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply that it had failed to contact the resident about her complaint since 12 May 2022. The landlord therefore offered the resident an additional £50 compensation.

55.        As the evidence shows that the stage 2 complaint was made between 6 April 2022 (when the landlord sent its stage one reply) and 12 May 2022, the landlord’s stage 2 reply was definitely sent outside of its 10 working day timescale. As mentioned above, the Ombudsman’s view is that the delay did cause some detriment to the resident as she was anxious to know the position regarding the bathroom, which she stated had been affecting her because she had chronic asthma. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s offer was again not proportionate to the detriment caused by the delay in sending the stage 2 reply.

56.        Overall, there were delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s complaints at both stages one and two. Although the landlord acknowledged these delays, apologised and offered compensation of £100 (£50 at stage one and £50 at stage 2), the Ombudsman’s view is that the level of redress offered was not proportionate to the cumulative level of detriment caused by the delays. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints. The finding takes into account that the landlord had apologised and attempted to put things right by offering financial redress, but the level offered was not proportionate.

57.        This Service has ordered additional compensation of £100. This sum was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance that was in operation at the time to recognise instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant.

Determination (decision)

58.        In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of repairs to the bathroom following a reported leak.

59.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the renewal of the back door.

60.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the driveway.

61.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for her bathroom to be refurbished.

62.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

63.        The landlord accepted there had been delays in progressing the work to the bathroom and offered compensation of £450. The landlord was unable to renew the bath because the resident had stated she wanted the bathroom to be refurbished.

64.        The landlord inspected and replaced the back door with a new UPVC door within reasonable timescales.

65.        It took the landlord 3 months to repair the driveway following the inspection of the driveway and the landlord did not provide progress updates to the resident regarding the repair.

66.        There was a lack of communication by the landlord regarding its plans to refurbish the resident’s bathroom. The landlord did not adequately explain to the resident why it had stated in its stage one letter that it intended to renew the bathroom and had subsequently changed its position.

67.        There were delays in the landlord responding to the stage one and stage two complaints and although the landlord offered compensation to acknowledge these delays, the amount offered was not quite proportionate.

Orders

68.        The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to pay the resident a total of £350 as follows:

  1. £50 for the delay in repairing the driveway.
  2. £100 for the lack of communication regarding the bathroom refurbishment.
  3. £200 for the handling of the associated complaints (this includes the £50 offered at stage one and £50 offered at stage 2 if these sums have not already been paid).

Recommendation

69.        The landlord should reoffer the resident the £450 offered in relation to the bathroom works if this has not already been paid.