Peabody Trust 2018 (202002546)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002546

Peabody Trust 2018

9 March 2022

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

This complaint is about:
1. The level of redress the landlord offered in respect of its acknowledged delays and failures while responding to a leak from the flat above;
2. The landlord’s recommendation to approach the above tenant about the leak;
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant, and the tenancy began on 15 August 2005. The property is a two-bedroom flat in a block. The resident lives with her son who acted as her representative in respect of the complaint.
The landlord’s relevant repairs policy confirms it is responsible for addressing plumbing repairs and leaks. It shows the landlord should respond to emergency repairs, which are needed to avoid an immediate danger to health, safety or property damage, within 24 hours. If repair works cannot be completed within this period, the situation will be made safe. The landlord should respond to routine repairs, where there is no risk to the resident or the landlord, within 35 days.
The landlord provided a screen shot of its system notes for the tenant living in the flat above the property (the tenant). The notes are undated, but they show the tenant was vulnerable and could be aggressive. Its internal correspondence confirms they were subject to safeguarding measures at an early stage in the below timeline. It later told the Ombudsman two staff members needed to be present when it attempted to access the upstairs flat for safety reasons.
The landlord operates a two stage formal complaints process. However, its complaints policy documents show it will initially attempt to resolve complaints informally through its “expression of dissatisfaction” process. If a complaint cannot be resolved using this method, or if the issue is considered inappropriate for an informal resolution, it can be logged under the landlord’s formal procedure. The documents show the landlord will not deal with reports of ASB or nuisance through its complaints procedure.
The landlord’s compensation policy shows it offers an allowance where a room is no longer useable because of damage. For unusable bedrooms, residents can be refunded up to 20% of their weekly rent. Where only a partial loss of use has occurred, the percentage will be reduced proportionately.
It also shows the landlord will not make compensation payments where a claim can be made on a home and contents or buildings insurance policy. It says residents are expected to take out adequate cover for their furniture, decorations and personal possessions to insure against accidental damage and other loss. However, where damage has been caused directly by the landlord’s actions it will consider reimbursement. This is to avoid further inconvenience or costs to affected residents.

Summary of events

The resident first reported water leaking through her bedroom ceiling on
30 September 2019. While the Ombudsman hasn’t seen a copy of the initial report, it is noted the landlord hasn’t disputed the resident’s version of events.
The landlord’s correspondence shows it sent the resident an acknowledgment on 14 October 2019. It said the resident’s concerns were received by email the same day and a member of staff would be allocated to her case as soon as possible. The information suggests the landlord responded to the resident using its informal complaints process.
The landlord’s internal notes show a case was opened on 29 October 2019. They said water was leaking from the above flat and had caused part of the property’s ceiling to collapse. Further, the issue was ongoing since the end of September 2019 and numerous works orders had been raised to address the issue. Though the landlord attended the upstairs flat on 28 October 2020 it had been unable to carry out any repair works. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the works orders mentioned in these notes.
The landlord has provided a timeline based on its internal notes and correspondence. It begins when the informal case was allocated on 31 October 2019. It shows numerous attempts were made to gain access to the upstairs flat between 6 November 2019 and 11 February 2020. It also shows these attempts broadly failed due to issues with the landlord’s handling and coordination of the situation.
The landlord’s repair notes from 27 November 2019 show the resident had called chasing the repair. They said the landlord had explained the leak from the above flat needed to be fixed before any repair works to the property could begin. A repair order for the leak was outstanding and the landlord would attend the following day.
The landlord issued another acknowledgement on 31 December 2019. It said the landlord had received the resident’s letter dated 19 November 2019 and it was passed to a team leader to respond accordingly. While the Ombudsman hasn’t seen this letter, the landlord’s internal notes suggest it said the resident was considering legal action. From the wording of the acknowledgement, it is unclear whether the complaint was formalised at this stage.
The landlord’s timeline shows the resident’s complaint was closed on
27 February 2020. The notes said the closure was approved by the landlord’s surveying team. The evidence seen suggests a surveyor had inspected the damage to the property around this time. However, the surveyor’s involvement failed to result in the leak being repaired.
The landlord wrote to the tenant on 7 May 2020. The letter said they were obliged facilitate access for repairs and the landlord was entitled to force entry in some circumstances. Further, they must not abuse or obstruct any of the landlord’s operatives.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 21 May 2020 shows concerns were raised internally about a local area manager’s handling of the situation.
The landlord’s internal notes show the tenant confirmed the leak was repaired on 22 June 2020. However, the resident later disputed this date on the basis the leak continued for around another two months before it was resolved.
The resident brought her case to the Ombudsman in July 2020. On 28 July 2020 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to her complaint by
18 August 2020.
In correspondence to the Ombudsman on 13 October 2020, the resident confirmed the landlord completed repairs to the property on 1 September 2020.
On 20 October 2020 the resident notified the Ombudsman the landlord had still not responded to her complaint. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage one on 27 October 2020.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 2 December 2020. The letter said the resident had still not received a response. As a result, the landlord should respond in five working days.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 18 December 2020.This was four months after the Ombudsman’s initial deadline and 12 working days after its letter. The main points were:
1. The landlord was sorry for the delay in responding to the complaint.
2. Though records concerning the leak went back to October 2019, the landlord could only consider events from 27 April 2020. This was because its complaints policy said concerns should be submitted formally within six months of an event occurring.
3. The resident made “countless” phone calls in relation to the issue. It was accepted she experienced distress and inconvenience and that the repair could have been completed sooner.
4. There had been a major delay in identifying the cause of the leak because the landlord had encountered “severe” access issues.
5. Major repairs were halted between March and June 2020 due to the pandemic. While access issues persisted once restrictions were lifted, the tenant ultimately confirmed the leak was repaired on 22 June 2020. This allowed the landlord to address the damage to the resident’s flat.
6. The landlord’s compensation policy did not allow it to compensate for personal items damaged due to unforeseen events. Its repairs policy said residents were expected to provide their own home and contents insurance cover. The implication was the resident should make a claim on a personal insurance policy.
7. £489.80 in compensation was awarded comprising £289.80 for the lack of enjoyment of a bedroom, along with £200 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience. The first calculation was based on 5% of the resident’s weekly rent (£6.90) multiplied by the number of weeks the repair was delayed (21). This amount was doubled to account for the impact on the resident’s bathroom.
The resident escalated her complaint by email on 31 December 2020. A detailed letter was attached confirming the reasons why she disagreed with the landlord’s response. The main points were:
1. From September 2019, persistent leaking water had caused a section of a bedroom ceiling to collapse. Further damage also resulted from related damp and mould issues. It took around a year to fix the leak and repair the ceiling.
2. During this time the affected bedroom was uninhabitable and moveable items were stored in the second bedroom. The useability of the second bedroom was therefore reduced. The situation caused stress, anxiety and inconvenience, which lead to the resident being unable to work for around two months. Her belongings were damaged, and her son was physically injured because the landlord failed to make the affected bedroom safe.
3. Since her complaint was first submitted in October 2019, the resident was unable to understand why the scope of the landlord’s investigation was limited. The landlord’s review should therefore consider the full timeline of events.
4. She also had concerns about the landlord’s handling of the situation. She was advised to approach the above tenant to try and resolve the problem. Having done so, she found they were hostile and suffered from mental health problems. This contact led to a number of subsequent ASB incidents, including noise nuisance, threatening behaviour and vandalism, which lasted for several months. The resident could provide a supporting crime reference number if required.
5. The resident’s concerns about ASB were reported to the landlord but the matter was never investigated. Given the tenant’s condition, the resident should never have been advised to approach them. This recommendation placed her in danger and added to the overall stress and anxiety caused by the leak.
6. The landlord repeatedly failed to respond to contact from the resident throughout the timeline. Further damage was caused by this lack of support and, despite assurances from the landlord, the situation did not improve after a complaint was raised. In May 2020 the resident was advised her complaint was previously closed even though the issues were ongoing.
7. The resident understood it had ultimately taken intervention by the Ombudsman to ensure the access issue was resolved. The leak was not repaired until mid-August 2020 and works to address the resulting damage did not begin for another two weeks.
8. Overall, the compensation awarded was disproportionate and the landlord had overstated the impact of the pandemic. This was because restrictions hadn’t started until later in the timeline and the resident was aware that repairs were undertaken during lockdown.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 20 January 2021. This was 14 working days after it was sent. Its acknowledgement email asked the resident to explain the reasons for her request.
The landlord updated the resident on 11 February 2021. It said the full timeline of events would be considered and it would aim to issue a response by 26 February 2021.
There was further correspondence between the parties from 26 February to
22 March 2021. During this time the landlord asked the resident to clarify the damaged items and the rooms affected. She provided costings for a replacement carpet and underlay along with a new wardrobe. She also confirmed the property’s bedrooms, rather than the bathroom, were mainly affected. In the correspondence, she was given a number of revised response deadlines which the landlord later failed to meet.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 1 April 2021. This was around ten weeks after the escalation request was acknowledged. It was also more than 17 months after the informal complaint was acknowledged. The main points were:
1. The resident’s complaint, from 29 October 2019, was initially handled using the landlord’s informal process. The resident approached the ombudsman following the conclusion of this procedure. The Ombudsman’s intervention resulted in a formal case being raised.
2. The landlord could use some discretion in relation to the scope of its investigation. In this case, the resident was advised her concerns were being handled informally but the landlord’s subsequent communications were unclear. As a result, the full timeline was considered during the review.
3. Informal complaints could only respond to repair issues. Further, the resident’s concerns about ASB were not included when her case was escalated to a formal complaint. The landlord should have explained how she could report the problem, either when the issue was first raised or during the complaints process.
4. It was not uncommon for the landlord to recommend that residents approach neighbours in the event of an emergency such as a leak. Its staff would not always be aware of ASB concerns since access to this information was restricted. However, staff should check the relevant system records to ensure no alerts were in place about the neighbour concerned.
5. Delays in responding to the resident’s formal complaint were acknowledged. The landlord said its offices closed in March 2020 and some of its staff were furloughed. At the same time, it was seeing a significant increase in case volumes. Recruitment was underway and normal levels service were expected to be restored soon.
6. Delays to the repairs were also accepted. The landlord experienced many problems gaining access to the required areas to allow works to be completed. The issue had been raised internally with a view to improving the landlord’s approach in similar cases. However, it would be unfair to discount the impact of the pandemic entirely. While some repairs were undertaken during lockdown, they were an exception rather than a routine practice.
7. Given the circumstances the overall level of compensation would be increased to £1948.20 in total. This figure comprised loss of use payments of £1159.20 and £289.00 for the two bedrooms. This calculation was based on 20% of the weekly rent for the unusable bedroom, and 5% for the second bedroom over a period of 42 weeks. The number of weeks was adjusted to reflect the impact of the pandemic on the landlord’s repair operations. A further £400 was offered to address resident’s distress and inconvenience, along with £100 to recognise various complaint handling failures.
8. The landlord identified a number of issues during its investigation. These were raised internally with a view to improving its service going forwards.
9. The landlord was prepared to discuss further redress for a damaged carpet, underlay and wardrobe on receipt of further evidence such as proof of costs or relevant quotes.
On 6 July 2021 the resident told the Ombudsman she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage two response. She said the compensation did not include redress for her damaged items, and a further sum of around £1500 was needed to cover the costs of fitting a replacement carpet and underlay, along with buying a like-for-like replacement wardrobe. These costs were in line with her previous clarification to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation was distressing for both the resident and her son. Further, that it was also ongoing for a considerable period of time. The landlord has acknowledged it was responsible for delays and failures throughout the timeline. It may help to explain that, though this service is an alternative to the courts, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury or loss of income aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court.
The above timeline confirms it took around eleven months for the landlord to complete repairs to the property. The evidence shows water was leaking persistently for most of this time and the property, shared by the resident and her son, lost one usable bedroom due to the resulting damage. The resident has said she had safety concerns during this time. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the leak caused a significant amount of distress and inconvenience. Its relevant repairs policy document shows the landlord was responsible for repairing the leak, which should have been made safe within 24 hours if it could not be immediately repaired.
Landlords are obliged to rectify structural problems within a reasonable timeframe in accordance with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985). In this case, the landlord was aware part of the bedroom ceiling had collapsed at an early stage in the timeline.
The evidence confirms the landlord experienced serious difficulties in gaining access to the above flat, which prevented it from tracing the source of the leak. Further, it was unable to repair the property until the leak was resolved. However, it also shows the landlord failed to manage the access problems and its efforts were frequently hampered by poor coordination. For example, it took more than seven months before it wrote to the above tenant about their obligation to facilitate access for the landlord to address the leak. Concerns about the landlord’s coordination of the access problem at a local level were recorded in its internal correspondence.
Given the above this assessment found a delay of around eleven months was unreasonable given the circumstances. Further, the landlord was correct to award a significant amount of compensation given the impact of situation on the resident. While the impact of the pandemic on the landlord’s repair operations was recognised, the timeline confirms the landlord had more than five months to rectify the leak before restrictions were imposed.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
This assessment checked the landlord’s loss of use calculations to assess whether they were fair and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. Based on the wording of the stage one response, it was found the resident’s weekly rent was £138. There were 48 weeks between the resident’s initial repair request and her confirmed completion date. 12 weeks were deducted from this timeframe to account for national lockdown restrictions between 26 March and 23 June 2020.
The allowance figures were recalculated as £993.60 and £248.40 respectively. It was noted the landlord’s calculations awarded higher figures for each room. This was because they were based on a delay of 42, rather than 36, weeks. The assessment found this was figure was reasonable. No evidence was seen to show a partial loss of use percentage of 5% was unreasonable given the circumstances.
Overall, this assessment found the landlord’s award of £1848.20 compensation, in respect of its response to the leak, was reasonable. This is because the award was found to be proportionate to resulting distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. However, the award was also considered in conjunction with the Ombudsman’s own internal redress guidance. It was noted the award was in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations for instances where ‘a landlord’s actions have resulted in a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant’. This is a reasonable benchmark for comparison given the circumstances. Though the landlord offered an additional £100 in respect of its complaint handling, bringing the total compensation offer to £1948.20, this will be considered separately later in the assessment.
The landlord’s stage two response confirmed it was prepared to discuss additional compensation in relation to the resident’s damaged personal items. However, it said the landlord was unable to make an offer without further evidence such as proof of costs or quotes. It was noted the resident provided the landlord with costings before it issued its final response. While no information was seen to show it was given any additional supporting evidence, the landlord hasn’t disputed the damage occurred. As a result, it would be reasonable for it to consider the resident’s request for additional compensation. Given the circumstances of the case, it is encouraged to show flexibility in respect of the information it requires to assess the resident’s request. For example, it could arrange to inspect the damaged items and make an assessment based on its findings.
Given the above, this assessment agreed there were significant delays and failings in respect of the landlord’s response to the leak. However, the landlord recognised these delays and failures along with the resulting distress and inconvenience to the resident. As a result, it made an offer of compensation, which was found to be reasonable and consistent with both the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s internal redress guidance. This assessment therefore found the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s recommendation to approach the tenant about the leak

Little evidence has been seen in relation to the resident’s concerns about ASB. However, the landlord has not disputed the comments in her escalation request from December 2020. Its final response letter said reports of ASB were not suitable for its complaints procedure. This is supported by the wording of its complaints policy, which confirms the complaints process can be used where a resident has concerns about the landlord’s handling of an (existing) ASB case. On that basis, the landlord should have signposted the resident to the correct process to handle her reports or raised an ASB case accordingly.
The landlord has acknowledged this signposting should have taken place. It also said it should have checked the tenant’s system notes before advising the resident to approach them about the leak. Further, there was an “oversight” in this regard. From the information seen, this assessment found the landlord was likely aware of the tenant’s circumstances from the beginning of the above timeline. As a result, it acted inappropriately by encouraging the resident to approach them about the leak because should have been aware they were vulnerable and could be aggressive.
The resident’s comments show the tenant’s initial reaction was aggressive, and the events that followed aggravated a situation which she already found distressing. From the information seen, the dispute that followed was both serious, as suggested by the involvement of the police, and avoidable. This assessment therefore found the landlord’s recommendation should be considered separately due to its distinct impact on the resident. It was noted the wording of the final response letter suggests the issue was not a key factor in the landlord’s compensation rationale.
Given the above this assessment found there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s recommendation that the resident approach the tenant. This was because the issue was serious, and it should have been subject to a separate offer of compensation proportionate to the level of additional distress and inconvenience which the resident was caused. It may help to explain that there was insufficient evidence for the Ombudsman to assess the landlord’s handling of the ASB. If the resident is concerned about this matter, she can raise a formal complaint with the landlord about the issue.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It is acknowledged the landlord accepted there were failings in its complaint handling and that the resident made “countless” calls. Further, it awarded £100 compensation to redress what went wrong. It is recognised it also showed a willingness to learn from complaints by raising internal feedback about issues identified during its investigation. The landlord has said it subsequently made amendments to its informal complaints process which should prevent similar issues from reoccurring. For example, it has said informal complaints are now automatically escalated if they are not resolved within a certain timescale. Further, they are now monitored more closely to ensure they are progressed promptly.
However, the above timeline confirms it took more than 17 months before a final response to the resident’s complaint was issued. This was an inappropriate timescale and, given the leak was ongoing for a significant portion of this timeframe, the landlord missed an opportunity to use its complaints process to promptly resolve the resident’s concerns. It is reasonable to conclude this ultimately contributed to the delay in completing repairs to the property. While the impact of the pandemic was again noted, decisions concerning the furloughing of staff were an internal matter for the landlord.
Similarly, the evidence shows the landlord closed the initial complaint in February 2020 without notifying the resident. The closure took place even though the landlord was aware the situation was sufficiently serious to prompt the resident to warn of legal action. The closure meant it was more difficult for the resident to monitor the complaint’s progress, and she was prevented from escalating her concerns to the next stage if she was dissatisfied at this point.
The timeline also shows the landlord initially failed to respond to the Ombudsman’s intervention, in July 2020, or comply with its deadlines. No information was seen to show the resident was notified of delays and she subsequently chased the response on a number of occasions. It is reasonable to conclude this was inconvenient.
When a stage one response was issued it failed to address the full timeline of events despite acknowledging there were relevant notes dating back to October 2019. The timeline suggests some of these notes were likely related to the informal complaint, which the resident had not agreed to close. The landlord’s stage one response was therefore contrary to the Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles of Be Fair and Put Things Right. The landlord should have considered the full timeline of events from the outset of its complaint investigation, and the resident was understandably frustrated by the limited scope of its initial investigation.
When the resident escalated her complaint, she was asked to explain the reasoning behind her request. This was despite the fact she previously attached a detailed rationale letter to her escalation request email. Following her response to the landlord’s information request, the resident was given response deadlines which the landlord then repeatedly failed to meet.
Given the above, this assessment found the persistent delays and failures in the landlord’s overall complaint handling amounted to maladministration overall. Further, its previous offer of £100 in compensation was disproportionate given the volume and duration of issues which occurred.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its acknowledged delays and failures while responding to a leak from the flat above.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of:
1. The landlord’s recommendation to approach the above tenant about the leak.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord awarded a significant amount of compensation in respect of its response to the leak. The award was found to be reasonable, consistent with its compensation policy and in line with the Ombudsman’s internal redress guidance.
The evidence suggests the landlord should have been aware the upstairs tenant was vulnerable and could be aggressive. It nevertheless encouraged the resident to approach them about the leak. It then failed to direct her concerns about subsequent ASB issues towards its correct process to handle them. The assessment found this matter was serious and warranted separate consideration.
There were delays and failures throughout the complaint journey which lasted more than 17 months. The landlord failed to respond to interventions and deadlines from the Ombudsman. Given the volume and duration of issues, this assessment found the landlord’s previous award of £100, in respect of its complaint handling, was disproportionate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident additional compensation (separate to its previous award of £1948.20 at stage two) of £400 in total within four weeks comprising:
1. £150 to redress the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by its recommendation to approach the above tenant.
2. £250 to redress the distress and inconvenience caused by the multiple delays and failures in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord, if it hasn’t already, to pay the resident the amount of £1948.20 as awarded in its stage two response.
The landlord to contact the resident and gather information about her damaged personal items with a view to assessing her request for additional compensation. The landlord could arrange to inspect the items if the resident is unable to provide supporting documentary evidence of her costs.
The landlord to share the key findings from this assessment with its staff for training purposes.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with respect to the recommendations within four weeks.