Peabody Trust (202210783)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210783

Peabody Trust

11 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Various repairs in the resident’s home, including but not limited to:
  1. Roof and guttering repairs.
  2. A boiler repair.
  3. Repairs to cracked stair treads.
  4. Bathroom repairs.
  5. A repair to the party wall in the resident’s garden.
  6. Removal of a tree.
2. The associated complaint.
3. Further repairs in the resident’s home including repairs to the resident’s boiler, intercom, and flooring in the resident’s separate downstairs WC.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member (landlord) has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”. Issues outside our jurisdiction will be referenced in this report for context only and have not formed part of the Ombudsman’s assessment of the complaint.
After careful consideration, the resident’s complaints about the following issues are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and have not been investigated by this Service:
1. The landlord’s repair to the resident’s intercom.
2. The landlord’s handling of a second boiler breakdown in December 2023.
3. The landlord’s handling of a repair to the flooring in the resident’s separate downstairs WC.
The resident has complained to the landlord about these issues but the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that they have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Evidence seen as part of this investigation indicates that the resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response to 2 of these complaints. It is recommended the landlord contacts her to discuss issuing a final response to these issues. If the resident remains dissatisfied after a final response has been issued, she could consider contacting our service to request an investigation at that stage.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, where she lives with her 2 children. She moved into the property in November 2021 through mutual exchange (swapping a tenancy with another tenant).
A pipe in the resident’s home burst on 21 November 2021. The water in the property was turned off, leaving the resident without heating or hot water. The landlord restored the heating.
On 24 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report concerns about a gas fire in the property. She said she was concerned that it could be leaking carbon monoxide as her detector was beeping.
The landlord repaired the pipe on 7 December 2021, but after it left the property, the resident said the heating stopped working downstairs. The landlord’s records show that it gave the resident temporary heaters on 11 December 2021.
On 30 December 2021, the resident reported that there were cracks in the treads of her stairs. She said she was worried the stair treads were at risk of collapse.
The landlord checked the resident’s gas fire on 9 February 2022 and it was safe to use. The next day, it repaired the cracked stairs.
On 26 February 2022, the resident reported that a tree in her garden was overgrown and leaning. She said the tree had been damaged further by a recent storm. She also said that in the paperwork from her mutual exchange, it was noted that the landlord needed to do work to the tree. The landlord inspected the tree on 28 March 2022. It found that the tree needed to be removed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 April 2022, asking it to replace her bathroom. She said it was not replaced when the bathrooms in neighbouring properties were, and it needed repair. The landlord responded that the bathroom was not due to be replaced until 2025-26, but it would do repairs.
On 26 April 2022, the resident reported that her gutters were blocked, and water ran over the top of them when it rained. To investigate the resident’s report, the landlord put up scaffolding at the property. It arranged for a second contractor to do a drone survey on 21 June 2022. The landlord asked its contractor to remove the scaffolding from the property on 11 July 2022. It was removed on 10 August 2022.
On 20 August 2022, the resident wrote to the Ombudsman as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her repairs. She said:
1. The landlord took too long to repair her boiler. It visited 4 times without fixing it. She could not turn off the heating for 2 months which increased her energy costs.
2. The landlord had not checked her gas fire was safe until 2 months after she had told it her concerns.
3. It took 2 months to repair her cracked steps.
4. The landlord had not repaired a cracked party wall in the garden. She had reported it 3 months ago.
5. The gutters were overgrown, and the water ran over them when it rained.
6. The landlord had inspected her bathroom for replacement 3 times but had not replaced it.
7. The landlord failed to remove a dangerous cable for 2 months.
8. The landlord’s contractor used her toilet and left faeces on the toilet seat.
The landlord logged the resident’s letter to the Ombudsman as a complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process.
On 15 September 2022, the landlord inspected the property and identified a series of repairs, including, but not limited to:
1. A roof repair to resolve a leak.
2. Internal redecoration to damp stains caused by the leak.
3. Clearing the guttering.
4. Replacing the bathroom.
5. Repairing pointing.
6. Repairing the party wall in the garden.
The landlord did a series of repairs in the property in October and November 2022.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process on 28 October 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint, saying:
1. It had removed the fire, and repaired the roof, garden wall, cracked steps, cable and boiler.
2. It acknowledged that repairs to the guttering and decorative work to the bedroom wall were outstanding.
3. It had brought her concerns about the contractor’s use of the toilet, and the delay in it beginning work after putting up scaffolding, to its contract manager’s attention.
4. Overall, it accepted that the repairs were not carried out in a reasonable timescale. It had allocated a surveyor to oversee the works to completion. The surveyor would tell her if the landlord could do external redecoration to her home to repair damage caused by the scaffolding.
5. It could not explain why it had not removed the gas fire after the resident requested this. It had confirmed the fire was safe.
On 14 November 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It said the remaining repairs to the roof, guttering and bathroom had been completed. It acknowledged that they had taken too long. Following a conversation with the resident, it offered her £600 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident was not happy with the landlord’s response and asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process on 12 January 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint, and increased its offer of compensation to £1400, comprising:
1. £150 for delays in its complaints handling.
2. £200 for delays in repairing her boiler.
3. £150 for its handling of her concerns about the gas fire in her home.
4. £75 for the frustration caused by delays in its repair of the cracked stairs.
5. £75 for its delay repairing the party wall in the garden.
6. £500 for its handling of the roof and guttering repairs. It also listed the repairs it had done.
7. £150 for its handling of the resident’s request for the bathroom to be repaired. It apologised if it had misinformed her that she would need to wait until 2025-26 for a bathroom replacement.
8. £50 for its handling of the removal of the cable in the basement.
9. £50 for its handling of the tree removal.
10. In addition, it said it had passed feedback to its contract manager about the condition the contractor left the toilet in and touched up external paintwork at the property as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response, including the amount of compensation offered. She told the Ombudsman she does not feel the landlord has taken learning from its failures in the handling of her repairs.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the repairs

In the landlord’s repairs policy, it commits to attending emergency repairs within 4 hours, completing non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days, and programmed repairs, including roof and bathroom replacements within 60 calendar days.
Across all the repairs considered in this investigation there was a theme of poor communication, with evidence of the resident contacting the landlord multiple times to get updates on the progress of her repairs. For example, the resident asked the landlord to tell her what repairs were needed to her roof. She asked it if she should be concerned, if the roof would collapse, or if the repairs were routine. In its complaint response the landlord appropriately accepted that it should have given her this information sooner and gave her a list of the repairs it had completed. Doing this at an early stage would have given the resident clear expectations and minimised any concern about her safety.
In addition, the resident told the Ombudsman she was frequently given different information from the landlord and its contractors and felt that she was acting as an intermediary between the 2. This was not appropriate. Where residents act as intermediaries between the landlord and its contractors, this causes them significant stress and inconvenience. The landlord is responsible for communicating with its contractors on its residents’ behalf.
The landlord accepted that there were communication failures between it and its contractors. For example, it told the resident that it had asked its contractor to remove the scaffolding, but the contractor failed to follow this instruction. The landlord should have robust contract management processes in place to ensure that contractors are delivering an adequate service. The landlord should consider whether there are steps it can take to improve its contract management process, given the findings in this case.
The landlord’s poor communication significantly undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord. As a result, the resident told the Ombudsman she frequently contacted her local MP to try to progress her repairs. This has been considered when looking at compensation as detailed below in this report.

The garden wall

The resident said that she reported a crack in the party wall in her garden in around May 2022, which had caused damage to her property. While we do not doubt the resident’s account, the evidence seen as part of this investigation does not show when the cracks were first reported. As such we cannot conclude that there was service failure in the landlord’s initial handling of the report. While the landlord said it could not find the resident’s initial report, it accepted that this did not mean she had not made a report. This was appropriate as it showed that it was taking the resident’s complaint seriously.
Once it was made aware of the issue during the complaints process, the landlord inspected and repaired the wall. Under its repairs policy timescales, the landlord should have repaired the wall by 20 September 2022, allowing for bank holidays, as this was 28 days after the resident complained, and it was a routine repair. The exact date of the repair is unclear from the landlord’s records. However, the repair must have been done between 15 September 2022 and 26 October 2022 based on the available evidence. This means that any delay in the repair would have been less than 28 working days. While any delay will have been inconvenient to the resident, as the repair was not causing an urgent health and safety issue, a delay of this length was not excessive.
The landlord awarded the resident with £75.00 compensation for its handling of the repair to the cracked party wall. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which says that awards in this range are appropriate where there has been a service failure by the landlord which caused avoidable distress and/or inconvenience to the resident. Therefore this was a reasonable offer.

Gas Fire

The landlord has a legal responsibility to carry out an annual gas check at any rented property it owns with a gas appliance. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy says that it will ensure there is a valid gas certificate before approving an exchange. As the landlord had done a check at the property on 27 February 2021, the gas check was still valid when the resident moved in, the landlord met its legal obligations and the requirements of its mutual exchange policy.
It is common practice for landlords to carry out an additional gas check when there is a change of occupancy in a property, for example through a mutual exchange. This enables landlords to be sure that gas appliances are safe when the new resident moves in. While this is not a legal requirement, it is something the landlord may wish to consider implementing. It should also consider giving a copy of its valid gas safety check paperwork to any resident moving into one of its properties through mutual exchange, as may offer them reassurance and prevent complaints in future.
Less than 2 weeks after she moved into the property, the resident reported concerns about the safety of the gas fire, saying that her carbon monoxide detector was bleeping. Gas leaks are highly poisonous, so the landlord should have taken urgent action to ensure the resident and her family were safe. There is no evidence it did so, and it did not carry out a gas check at the property for almost 3 months. This was an unacceptable failure. The landlord should ensure that all of its staff are able to give appropriate advice when residents indicate there may be a gas leak in a property. Although it transpired that there was no leak, the landlord’s lack of action resulted in considerable worry for the resident. She also spent time and effort pursuing her concern.
The landlord raised 2 jobs for its contractor to check the fire and provide feedback in November and December 2021, but although they went to the property, the check was not done. The landlord acknowledged that this was inappropriate.
The landlord’s communication with the resident about the gas issue was inadequate. For example, there is no evidence it told the resident whether it would, or would not, remove the fireplace, despite her requests.
The landlord removed the gas fire as requested by the resident. It was not required to do so, as the fire did not need repair, or pose a risk because there was no leak. As such, the Ombudsman has not considered the delay in removing the fire in line with the landlord’s repairs policy timescales. Nevertheless, the landlord should have removed the fire in a reasonable timeframe once it had agreed to do so. However, the landlord’s records indicate that the fire was not removed until around 10 months after the resident initially requested it. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that this timescale was not reasonable and will have caused the resident frustration.
Given the issues the landlord identified in the failure of its gas contractor to carry out the checks it had been instructed to do, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to raise the issue with its gas contractors through its contract manager. This would have demonstrated that it had taken learning from the resident’s case. There is no evidence it did so. It is recommended that the landlord should raise the issue now, in an effort to prevent similar issues occurring in future.
While the landlord offered the resident £150 in compensation in recognition of the frustration caused by the avoidable delays in its handling of the case, this award did not reflect the distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to carry out urgent gas checks when she raised concerns about a carbon monoxide leak. As such the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation, in addition to the compensation it has already offered through its complaints process. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above.

Heating repairs

Overall, the landlord’s handling of the repair to the resident’s heating was inadequate. It took too long, and the landlord carried out several visits to the resident’s home without resolving the issues. The landlord’s records show that the resident had to contact it repeatedly throughout the process, which indicates that it did not keep her updated. This will have caused her additional worry and inconvenience.
On 21 November 2021, a pipe in the resident’s property burst. As a result, the landlord had to turn off her boiler, and the resident was left without heating and hot water. The resident has children in her home and the heating broke in winter, so this will have had a significant impact on her and her family. The landlord should have treated the repair as an emergency and attended the property within 4 hours in line with its repairs policy. Although the landlord’s records indicate that it provided the resident with bottled water while her water was switched off, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that it attempted to repair the heating as an emergency. The resident emailed the landlord on 25 and 26 November 2021, and on 6 December 2021 she asked it to log a formal complaint as she said she had been without heating and hot water for almost 2 weeks. The landlord’s records indicate it did not repair the resident’s pipe until 6 December 2021, 16 days after it burst. This was not an appropriate timescale given the implications of the repair.
The landlord said that there was already hot water at the property on 6 December 2021. It is unclear from its records when the hot water was reinstated. However, the resident reported that once the landlord’s operative left her home, she identified a further issue with the heating. It only worked on one floor of her property at a time.
The landlord’s records show that it provided the resident with temporary heaters on 11 December 2021. This was appropriate, as being without heating in half of her home would have caused significant inconvenience to the resident and her children. However, the landlord should have provided the heaters sooner, as this was 5 days after the resident reported the second issue with her heating and 20 days after her heating was initially turned off. The temperature during this period was as low as 0 degrees celsius overnight.
When the landlord did a temporary repair of the burst pipe, it left the pipes exposed in the resident’s home. The resident wrote to the landlord because she was worried that the exposed pipes, which became hot when the heating was in use, were a risk to her children. In its records, the landlord recorded that this was a “safety issue” but said it could not replace the floorboards until a permanent repair was done to the pipe. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to look at a temporary solution to mitigate any risk caused by the exposed pipework, but there is no evidence it did so.
The landlord completed the repair to the resident’s heating on 25 February 2022. It accepted that it had completed the repair outside of its policy timescale, and visited her home many times, which caused her inconvenience. However, it did not recognise the impact of the period where she was left without heating or hot water in her home. This will have caused her significant inconvenience and worry about the wellbeing of her family. As such the landlord’s offer of £200 in compensation was not proportionate to the failures identified by this investigation. The landlord is ordered to pay an additional £100 in compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused by failures during this period. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, says that awards in this range are appropriate where the landlord has acknowledged failings but failed to fully address the detriment to the resident.
The resident told the landlord that she was unable to turn the heating off in her hallway for over 2 months as a result of the delayed repair. She told the Ombudsman that she had asked the landlord to reimburse her the additional heating costs she incurred as a result, but it asked her to demonstrate the increased costs with comparative energy bills. The resident was unable to provide these as the issues occurred shortly after she moved into the property. While it is generally reasonable to ask a resident to provide evidence of the costs they have incurred, this is not always possible. In these circumstances the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says “where we are satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, a resident has incurred costs but has not been able to evidence this…we may say that a landlord should pay an amount in recognition of the fact that the resident has incurred costs that would not have arisen had the maladministration not occurred”. As such, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation for the increase in her energy costs during this time. It is accepted that the actual cost may be different but £100 is considered to be a reasonable estimate, in view of the likely additional energy cost and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Where there are failures in a landlord’s handling of a case, it should take learning from this and seek to improve its service going forward. In this case, the Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident’s heating broke during the following winter. In the landlord’s handling of the new repair, there were similar service failures. For example, the landlord’s records show poor communication between the landlord and the resident, and that she was left without heating or hot water in her home during winter. As a result, the resident says she slept in her car with her children to stay warm, and some of her pet fish died. This indicates that the landlord did not take learning from the failures in its earlier handling of her repairs, causing additional distress to the resident. To put things right for the resident, it has been ordered to tell her in writing any learning it has taken from her case, and actions it has taken to improve its service provision in future. This is discussed in more detail later in the report.

Cable in basement

During its mutual exchange inspection, the landlord noted that it did not have access to the basement as an electrician was working in it at the time of the inspection. While it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect the basement again when the repair was completed, this may not have identified any issues with cabling, as the area was being used for storage by the former tenant of the property, and mutual exchange inspections are unintrusive. As such there is no evidence the landlord should have known about the issue before the resident reported it.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, available on our website, says that landlord’s records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why. In this case, the resident said that she reported the cable to the landlord in around June 2022. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account, we have not seen evidence of her initial report of the cable issue. In addition, the landlord’s records and its complaints responses are not clear about when it removed the cable in the resident’s basement. These are record keeping failures.
In its complaint responses the landlord explained that the basement had been left in a poor state by the previous occupant of the address, and it had cleared the area in July 2022. The resident told the Ombudsman on 20 August 2022 that the landlord had not resolved the cable, which indicates that the cable was not removed as part of this work.
Although the landlord said that “any unsafe cables were dealt with” as part of its surveyor’s involvement, this period was from 15 September 2022 to around 17 November 2022. As such, the Ombudsman is not able to determine if there was a delay in the landlord removing the cable. Overall, as the cable was in an uninhabitable part of the property, the impact of a delay will not have been excessive. As such, the landlord’s offer of £50 in compensation for its handling of the cable repair was reasonable. It is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which says that awards in this range are appropriate where there have been service failures, including delays which caused distress and inconvenience but there may not have been a significant, long-lasting impact on the resident.

Bathroom replacement

The landlord told the resident that it upgrades bathrooms in its properties on an investment cycle. This is common practice for landlords, enabling them to budget for improvement works and use their resources efficiently. The resident’s bathroom had not been upgraded as part of the previous investment cycle, and the landlord told her that the next investment cycle for her home was not due for a further 3 years. It said in the meantime, it would only be able to repair her bathroom, not replace it.
However, in its complaint responses, the landlord explained that this was not correct, in some circumstances, it would consider bringing replacement work forward. Landlords should consider replacement rather than repair outside investment cycles if items cannot be economically repaired. In the resident’s case, it accepted that significant repairs were needed. As such, it should have sent a stock condition surveyor to her property sooner. Its failure to do so caused an avoidable delay.
The resident told the Ombudsman that she had 3 surveys of her bathroom between April and September 2022. The landlord accepted appropriately that it had made no “meaningful progress” during this time. This caused an avoidable delay of around 4.5 months which will have been frustrating for the resident. After the landlord had surveyed the property and produced a schedule of works, it completed the bathroom replacement within its repairs policy timescale of 60 calendar days, which was appropriate.
The landlord awarded the resident £150 in compensation for the delay and its handling of her request. As the resident’s bathroom was useable during this time, the compensation award was reasonable. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends awards in this range where there has been maladministration by the landlord, but this has not had a permanent impact on the resident.
After her bathroom was replaced, the resident reported that repairs were needed to the floor of her separate WC. It is not clear from the landlord’s records why this was not replaced at the same time as her main bathroom. Its handling of this repair does not indicate that the landlord had taken learning from the service failures in its earlier repairs. For example:
1. When the resident told the landlord about the new issues with her bathroom, it repeated its earlier advice, giving her the date of the next investment period. It did not explain that if significant repairs were needed, it would consider bringing forward a bathroom replacement.
2. The landlord agreed the flooring around the toilet needed to be replaced, but its records indicate that its contractors were given conflicting instructions. As a result, it told the resident they would only patch repair the floorboards, not replace them. This caused further damage to the landlord-tenant relationship and indicated that the landlord’s communication with its contractors had not improved. To put things right for the resident, it has been ordered to tell her in writing any learning it has taken from her case, and actions it has taken to improve its service provision in future. This is discussed later in the report.

Staircase repair

The landlord did not identify that any repairs were required to the stairs when it did a mutual exchange inspection of the property in September 2021. None of the information available to this investigation indicates that the landlord should have been aware of the cracks in the stairs before the resident reported them on 30 December 2021:
1. The stairs were carpeted when the landlord inspected them, although the resident told the Ombudsman that they audibly creaked. As such, any cracks in the stairs would not have been apparent in the landlord’s non-invasive mutual exchange inspection of the property.
2. It is not clear if the cracks in the stairs appeared before or after the mutual exchange survey.
When the resident reported that there were cracks in 5 of her steps, she said she was worried someone could fall through them. The landlord attended the property in 7 working days to assess the steps. This was not reasonable, as the resident had indicated that there was a health and safety risk. As such, the landlord should have carried out an initial assessment of the steps as an emergency repair within 4 hours, in line with its repairs policy.
When it assessed the steps, the landlord determined they did not pose a health and safety risk, so it did not carry out any temporary repair. While this was appropriate, it is not clear that it explained this to the resident at the time. On 23 January 2022, the resident told her MP that she was worried the steps would fail and someone would fall through. This indicated that the landlord had not told her that there was no health and safety risk after its assessment. It should have done this to reassure her.
In its stage 2 complaints response the landlord appropriately recognised that its communication with the resident about the repair was inadequate and that it completed the repair 28 days outside of its policy timescale. It also explained that the delay was caused by its contractor having difficulty sourcing materials. While the delay in sourcing materials was outside of the landlord’s control, it should have communicated this to the resident clearly, to manage her expectations.
The landlord offered the resident £75 in compensation for the delays and its poor communication in relation to the stair repair. This offer was appropriate as although the delayed repair was inconvenient for the resident, and the landlord’s poor communication caused her worry, the evidence does not indicate that there was any risk to the resident or her family. As above, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that compensation between £50 and £100 is appropriate where there has been service failure by the landlord but this has not significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Guttering and roof repair

The landlord completed the repair to the resident’s guttering and roof 7 months after she reported it, 5 months outside of its policy timescale for planned repairs. The landlord appropriately apologised for the significant delay in it completing the resident’s guttering and roof repair and accepted that it had managed the repair poorly. It also apologised for its poor communication with the resident, which was discussed earlier in the report.
When the resident reported the issue with her guttering on 26 April 2022, the landlord inspected the property in a timely manner. However, it accepted that there were delays in erecting and removing the scaffolding at the property, and that it did not carry out any repairs while the scaffolding was installed. While some of the delays were caused by the weather, which was outside of its control, the landlord accepted there were communication issues between it and its contractor. In its stage 1 complaint, the landlord said it had brought the issues to the attention of the relevant contract manager. This was an appropriate step to put things right for the resident, as it would have enabled the landlord to use the resident’s experience to inform its contract management process.
The landlord arranged for a second contractor to do a drone survey of the resident’s property. With the information available to this investigation, it is not clear whether both the scaffolding and the drone survey were needed to produce a specification of repairs. The landlord acknowledged appropriately that the delay in removing the scaffolding caused the resident inconvenience. For example, she explained that she had difficulty in moving her bins when the scaffolding was up.
Due to the number of repairs needed, the landlord allocated the repairs to a different “core” contractor. While it may have increased the delay in it completing the repair, this decision was reasonable as landlords may use different contractors for different repairs, so they can deliver a value for money service.
The landlord offered the resident £500 in compensation for the errors in its handling of her roof and guttering repair. This award was reasonable as it was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which says that awards in this range are appropriate where there were significant failures by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Overgrown Tree

The landlord’s mutual exchange policy says that when a resident applies for mutual exchange, it will inspect the condition of their property to identify any repairs needed. The landlord completed a mutual exchange inspection at the property on 8 September 2021 in line with its policy. It found that the tree in the garden needed to be cut back. It accepted responsibility in doing this.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it did cut back the tree before the exchange. This was not appropriate. If the landlord had done what it agreed to do, it would have saved the resident time and trouble of having to pursue the issue, as well as worry about the safety of the tree.
After moving into the property, the resident reported her concerns about the tree on 26 February 2022. She said that the tree was leaning, and this had worsened by a recent storm. She believed that the tree was unsafe. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess the tree urgently to confirm if it was a risk to safety. The landlord did not inspect the tree for a month, and there is no evidence it assessed whether it posed a risk before the inspection. This was not appropriate. The landlord should ensure that it triages all reports of trees that may pose a health and safety risk and keeps accurate records of this in future.
On 7 March 2022, the landlord said that it would contact the resident within 24 hours, but it failed to do this. As a result, the resident sent a further email to the landlord on 21 March 2022, and when she did not receive a response, she raised the issue with her local MP. This was a communication failure which will have caused the resident inconvenience.
When the landlord assessed the tree, it determined that it did not pose a health and safety risk. The landlord confirmed that for routine tree works, it aimed to fell trees within 90 days. The landlord felled the resident’s tree 129 days after the resident reported her concerns. This was outside its timescale for tree repairs. The landlord recognised that the delay was inappropriate and offered the resident £50 in compensation for the delay.
While the landlord’s award of compensation was reasonable for the delay in it felling the tree, it did not reflect its earlier communications failures or its failure to do the work when it was first identified in September 2021 during the landlord’s mutual exchange inspection. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in addition to the compensation it has already awarded. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where the landlord has recognised some failures, but it has not fully resolved the issues for the resident.

Conduct of the landlord’s contractor

The landlord’s repairs policy says that residents can expect its contractors to behave appropriately in residents’ homes, showing respect for both the resident and their belongings. Contractors are required to leave the site of repair in a tidy, safe and secure manner.
When the resident reported that the landlord’s contractor left feces on her toilet seat, the landlord apologised for the resident’s experience. This was appropriate, as the behaviour the resident reported did not meet the requirements for contractors’ behaviour set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. The incident understandably caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord also said that it had raised the incident with its heating contract manager. This was a reasonable way for the landlord to approach the issue, as it enabled the contractor to address the issue with its staff. The landlord could also have considered agreeing not to send the same member of staff to the resident’s property again, if it was practical to do so to give her a greater leavel of reassurance.
Cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs in the resident’s home. While the landlord apologised for some of the errors in its handling of her case, it did not always appreciate the impact that these had on the resident, and in some cases the compensation it ordered was not proportionate to the findings of this investigation.
To put things right for the resident, in addition to the compensation ordered, the landlord is ordered to apologise to her in writing for the failures found in this investigation, including its communication with the resident and its contractors, and its provision of temporary heaters. It should explain any specific learning it has taken from her case, including actions taken to improve its service in these areas going forward.

Complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. The landlord’s complaints policy uses this definition.
The resident asked the landlord to treat her emails as complaints on at least 3 occasions before it did so. This was not appropriate, as the resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the standard of its service. Failing to log the resident’s complaints appropriately will have resulted in additional time and trouble to the resident, who had to make additional contact with the landlord to pursue her complaint. As such, there was a delay of 10 months between the first time the resident asked the landlord to log a complaint about its handling of her repairs, and its first complaint response. This was a service failure which will have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s trust in the landlord’s complaints handling process.
On one occasion, the landlord logged her complaint as an “expression of dissatisfaction”. This was not appropriate, as it created an additional stage in the landlord’s complaints process and caused confusion to the resident. The Code says: “It is not appropriate to have extra named stages…as this causes unnecessary confusion”.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints or complaint escalation requests within 5 working days. It will respond at stage one of its process within 10 working days, and at stage 2 of its process within 20 working days. This in line with the timescales set out in the Code. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that there were delays at both stages of its complaints process. The landlord awarded the resident £150 for poor complaint handling. Had the landlord not acknowledged these failings and awarded compensation, the Ombudsman would have found that there was maladministration in its handling of the case.
The landlord’s compensation offer was not proportionate to the inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident by the cumulative delays in its complaints handling. This amounts to service failure. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation, in addition to the compensation it has already offered. As above, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident has asked the landlord to escalate a complaint about her bathroom floor to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord said it did not need to escalate the complaint as the repair had been completed. However, the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repair. The Code says that “landlords must not refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure unless it has valid reasons to do so. Landlords must clearly set out these reasons, and they must comply with the provisions set out in section 2 of this Code”. The landlord’s reasons for refusing the resident’s escalation request do not align with the provisions set out in the Code or the exclusions listed in the landlord’s complaints policy. As such, it should escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process and issue a final response, including referral rights to the Ombudsman.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs in the resident’s home.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaints were outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler in December 2023.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s intercom
3. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the flooring in the resident’s separate downstairs WC.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report. In its apology the landlord should consider its communication with the resident and its contractors, and delays in its provision of temporary heaters. It should explain any learning taken from the resident’s case and any actions it has taken to improve its service in these areas going forward.
2. Pay the resident £500 in compensation, in addition to the £1400 it has already awarded, comprising:
  1. £100 in compensation for the additional heating costs incurred by the resident because of the delays in the landlord’s repair of her heating.
  2. £100 in compensation for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s heating repair, and the resulting distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  3. £100 for the worry caused by the landlord’s failure to treat her concerns about a potential gas leak in her home as an emergency.
  4. £100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to carry out work to the tree in her garden as part of the mutual exchange process.
  5. £100 for its complaints handling failures.
  6. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears. As such, the compensation ordered should be paid to the resident directly.

Recommendations

The landlord should escalate the resident’s complaint about repairs to her bathroom floor to stage 2 of its complaints process and issue a response including referral rights to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should consider whether there are steps it can take to improve its contract management process, focusing on communication with its contractors to reduce the need for residents to communicate with the contractors about repairs.
The landlord may wish to consider carrying out a gas check as part of its mutual exchange process and giving any resident moving into one of its properties through mutual exchange a copy of their valid gas safety certificate.
The landlord should ensure that all of its staff are trained and have access to guidance documents so they are able to give appropriate advice when residents indicate there may be a gas leak in a property.