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

Peabody Trust (201907854)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201907854

Peabody Trust

7 May 2021


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 the resident’s repair request
    2. The compensation offered by the landlord for a lack of heating
    3. The process and condition of the property at the start of the resident’s tenancy; and
    4. The landlord’s decision to increase the rent.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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, or parts of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, the Ombudsman will not be investigating the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with ‘the process and condition of the property at the start of the resident’s tenancy’. This is as, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident should have brought her concerns to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. As the resident began her tenancy in 2015, but did not raise her complaint until 2019, in the Ombudsman’s view, a reasonable period elapsed. The Ombudsman has therefore considered this to be outside of this Service’s jurisdiction.
  3. Moreover, the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision to increase the rent and has concluded that this too falls outside of this service’s jurisdiction. This is as the issue concerns the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s decision to increase the rent (and service charge) which, in the Ombudsman’s view, would be better determined by the First Tier Tribunal (FTT).
  4. As per paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
  5. The Ombudsman has therefore only investigated:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair request
    2. The compensation offered by the landlord for a lack of heating; and
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been an Assured Shorthold Fixed–Term Tenant, in respect of the property, since 25 May 2015.
  2. The property is a one-bedroom flat.

Legal and policy framework

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obligated to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, except where the tenant or persons living with the tenant or the tenant’s visitors have caused disrepair by failing to use the property in a reasonable manner.
  2. Once the landlord has been informed of repairs that are needed, the tenant must allow a reasonable time for the work to be done, and liability only arises once the reasonable time has elapsed from the date the notice was served. The length of time will depend on the scale of the work and the effect the disrepair is having. The landlord will not be in breach of its repairing obligation until this time has elapsed. 

Repair Guide

  1. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s repair guidance. This details the way in which the landlord prioritises resident repair needs and suggests that for routine repairs, it endeavours to complete the necessary works within 20 working days.

Complaints policy

  1. The landlord has also provided a copy of its complaints policy. This sets out the landlord’s two stage complaints process. On review of this, and the landlord’s website, the Ombudsman has noted the landlord’s proposal to:
    1. Acknowledge complaints within three workings days.
    2. Undertake an investigation at stage one by a manager from the relevant service area, and to respond within 10 working days.
    3. Undertake an independent review at stage two, which will be carried out by the Customer Experience Team. This will be responded to within 15 working days.

Compensation policy

  1. The Ombudsman has additionally reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy. Of particular relevance to this case, the Ombudsman has noted:
    1. The landlord will offer up to £100 where compensation is due for poor complaint handling.
    2. Where there has been a loss of heating, the landlord will pay an amount of £3 a day after the initial 24 hours between the winter months of 1 October and 30 April.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s records suggest that on 10 and 11 August 2017 the resident reported a hole and damage to the ceiling. It was noted that the resident was losing a lot of heat via the hole. 
  2. It does not appear that any progress was made towards the resident’s repair immediately following the report. The Ombudsman notes however that on 27 December 2017 the landlord’s operatives attended the resident’s property however were unable to gain entry.
  3. An attempt was made to contact the resident on 16 January 2018 by the landlord’s operative but without success. The landlord’s operative therefore wrote to the resident to explain that it had attempted to make contact in order to undertake the works to the ceiling. It requested a call back.
  4. On 8 March 2018 the resident contacted the landlord to establish why the ceiling still had not been fixed. The landlord explained that this would not be done until an overarching roofing issue had been repaired. It noted that a repair had been raised for this, however was cancelled as it was unable to get hold of the resident to arrange a further appointment. The resident was advised that a new repair order had been raised and an appointment would be scheduled.
  5. The Ombudsman can see that an appointment was scheduled for 12 March 2018 however works were not undertaken.
  6. The landlord’s records suggest that on 20 March 2018 a voicemail was left for the resident advising her of its appointment availability on 3 April 2018. The resident was informed that she needed to call back to confirm this. 
  7. According to the landlord, no call back was made, and the repair request was subsequently closed.
  8. On 30 October 2018, as shown by the landlord’s repair records, the resident reported having no heating at her property. It appears that a temporary heater was delivered on the same day.
  9. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 9 November 2018. It is unclear whether the heating was restored however the landlord noted that a heat pump was required.
  10. On 20 November 2018 the resident called to report a leak coming from the roof. The landlord raised a repair order to stop the leak and noted that it would advise on any additional work required following this. It appears that the leak was stopped on the following day.  The landlord’s records suggest that other residents had also been experiencing issues with the roof at the same time.
  11. Internal emails demonstrate that a ‘loss of heating’ compensation form was subsequently submitted by the resident. The landlord’s records show that this was received on 28 November 2018.
  12. The landlord’s internal emails suggest that works were also undertaken to the roof and completed by 17 January 2019. It is unclear whether this resolved the resident’s issue, and the Ombudsman cannot see that there was any communication with the resident.
  13. On 24 January 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord. She expressed that after being without heating for almost a year, the issue was finally repaired in November 2018. She had since submitted a compensation form however had received no response. She noted that she had chased this several times. She stated that she would therefore be deducting this money from her rent. The resident stated that as per the compensation guidelines, she was due £3.60 per day for each temporary heater used. As there were two temporary heaters provided, and the issue had occurred between December 2017 and November 2018 this made a total of £1,375.20.
  14. On 10 May 2019 the resident wrote further to the landlord. Along with the issues which the Ombudsman has considered out of jurisdiction, the resident expressed that the landlord had failed in its obligation to carry out essential repairs and it had become a health and safety hazard which she intended to report to Environmental Health. She stated that it had been almost a year since she had reported a leak in her ceiling and this had deteriorated overtime, creating a hole the size of a melon. The resident asserted that the only way to rectify this was to rehouse her.
  15. On 28 June 2019 the landlord provided the resident with its stage one response. It made no comment in response to the resident’s reported ceiling issue or her compensation forms. Additionally, no details were provided on how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  16. On 7 November 2019 this service wrote to the landlord following contact from the resident. The resident’s further complaint was shared with the landlord in which she expressed:
    1. There had been a failure to carry out essential repairs. What started off as a leak in the ceiling had now turned into a huge gaping hole which leaked every time it rained.
    2. She was without heating for approximately one year. The compensation form was completed and submitted for each day that this went on however the landlord claimed that it had not received this. This had still not been paid or credited to her account.
    3. Her correspondence had been ignored. Upon speaking with Customer Services, she was informed that her letters had not yet been allocated to the appropriate department. A stage one response was later received however this did not address all of her issues.

This Service requested that the landlord provide the resident with a complaint response by 28 November 2019.

  1. The resident also wrote the landlord on 9 November 2019 explaining that in light of the landlord’s failings and negligence in carrying out essential repairs, she had no intention of verbally engaging with staff. She requested that all contact be made in writing to provide an audit trail. She stated that she had written several letters of complaint over the years which the landlord had summarily dismissed or chosen to ignore.
  2. On 14 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident. It acknowledged the escalated complaint shared by this service and explained that it would provide a response by 4 December 2019.
  3. On 5 December 2019 the landlord provided its final response. It noted:
    1. In order to investigate the outstanding repairs, it needed to know what repairs the resident was referring to. It advised, however, that it would only investigate delays in responding to repairs within 6 months of the issue occurring. It confirmed that under its repair policy, routine repairs were to be completed within 35 working days.
    2. While the resident had reported being without heating for a year, its gas contractor had been unable to confirm this. The landlord noted that temporary heaters were provided on 29 October 2018 and shortly after it had received a compensation claim from the resident. The landlord noted that the resident had report a hole in December 2018, which she claimed was causing a loss of heat, but found no evidence of a report that there was no heating generally. It therefore would not offer compensation for the loss of heating for a year.
    3. Much of the resident’s correspondence went unanswered. The landlord also noted that within the stage one response, it had not advised the resident on how she could escalate her complaint. The landlord explained that this had now been taken up with the relevant parties to ensure that this did not happen again.
    4. Concerns had also been raised with the Mechanical Service Manager to undertake a wholesale review of the team, following the lack of responses from the Gas Team. It noted that this did not represent its service well and explained that it would ensure it did not happen again.

It therefore recognised that the resident had received a poor service and that the complaint had not been responded to in a timely fashion. In recognition of the poor service, the landlord agreed to award the resident £400 compensation. A further £100 would be awarded for its inadequate stage one response, which it noted was the maximum under its policy. In relation to the resident’s heating, the landlord noted that the resident had reported the issue on 29 October 2018 and received temporary heaters on the following day. As this was completed on 9 November 2018, it would offer £30 compensation, at a rate of £3 a day in line with its compensation policy. An additional £100 would be awarded for the delay in processing this payment and for the lack of response, amounting to a total of £630.

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident responded to this on 1 January 2020 explaining (amongst her other complaint points) that:
    1. The compensation form she had initially completed offered £3.60 per heater per day for the months she was without heating (excluding the warmer months). The landlord needed to honour the original claim that was submitted.
    2. She could confirm that an engineer did attend her property to repair the heating, and thereafter the heating had been left on for a good stretch of days, however once it was turned off it appeared to malfunction. Instead of reporting this, she resorted to using the temporary heaters. She deliberately refrained from contacting the landlord due to the many issues she had been having. She reported that due to a new issue with the boiler, she still had no heating.
    3. The operative that had assessed her ceiling had informed her that the exterior hole in the roof needed to be repaired as a priority before the interior ceiling in order to prevent future, further damage. She expressed that this was two years prior and questioned why the landlord had taken no action to repair the roof.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair request

  1. As per the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 once the landlord is informed of the need for repair (for which it is responsible), the landlord should take appropriate steps to resolve the issue within a reasonable amount of time. Reasonable, in this circumstance, would have been within 20 working days as per the landlord’s repair guidance (although the Ombudsman notes that the landlord suggested 35 working days within its final response). The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s actions however, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord failed to uphold this.
  2. The Ombudsman accepts that following earlier reports in 2017 in which the resident reported cracks and holes in the ceiling, the landlord made attempts to address the issue. In March 2018 in response to the resident’s communication, the landlord also attempted to contact the resident to arrange an appointment and with no success, requested that the resident confirm her availability by returning the call. It subsequently closed the repair with no further contact from the resident. This was reasonable.
  3. On 20 November 2018 however, the resident reported a further leak in her ceiling. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord was able to stop the leak on the following day, however it does not appear that the landlord undertook any works to repair the hole / crack or roofing issue as it said it would. The Ombudsman can see that within the landlord’s internal records, it noted that once it had stopped the leak, it would advise the resident on the additional work required moving forward. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence, however, that the resident was given any further details on the landlord’s intended next steps. 
  4. The landlord has acknowledged, within its stage two complaint response, that the resident made further contact in December 2018 to report the hole (and subsequent loss of heat). Still, it does not appear that the landlord took any action.  While its internal emails suggest that some work may have been undertaken to the roof in January 2019, it is unclear whether this fully rectified the issue for the resident at this time, and there is no evidence of communication.
  5. What’s more, the resident raised her dissatisfaction with the outstanding issue in both her further complaint on 10 May 2019 and again in her later correspondence, which this Service shared with the landlord on 7 November 2019. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction on 9 November 2019 that works were still outstanding. Despite this, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord failed to acknowledge the issue within both its stage one and two responses. At stage one, the landlord overlooked the resident’s allegation of a failure to carry out essential repairs and made no attempt to respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction. Following this, at stage two, the landlord suggested that it was unaware which repair the resident had been referring to, despite the resident making this clear within her complaints.
  6. In the Ombudsman’s view, there was subsequently a failure in service. The landlord failed to uphold its repair obligations and to adhere to the timeframes set out within its policy (as well as that quoted in its response). The evidence provided by the landlord shows no action or communication with the resident to adequately resolve the issue with her ceiling, and it is unclear why, with knowledge of an overarching roof problem dating back to at least March 2018, the landlord delayed in taking steps to address the roof (and therefore to prevent the resident’s ceiling issue from potentially worsening or reoccurring).
  7. At minimum, the following the resident’s complaint in May 2019, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to undertake an inspection of the resident’s property to verify the extent of the ceiling deterioration and to take any steps necessary to resolve matters. It appears, however, that nothing was done, and this was unacceptable.

The compensation offered by the landlord for a lack of heating

  1. While the resident has suggested that her heating had not been working for approximately a year, the Ombudsman has been unable to locate records which evidence any issues with heating prior to October 2018. The Ombudsman has therefore considered the landlord’s final response on this matter to be appropriate.
  2. The Ombudsman notes that following the reported issue, the landlord provided the resident with temporary heaters on 30 October 2018. This was appropriate and ensured that the resident was not without heat. Recognising that the use of these heaters would however increase the resident’s energy bills, it was additionally fair for the landlord to offer to compensate the resident for the daily use, in line with its compensation policy.
  3. The landlord did, however, note receipt of the resident’s compensation form on 28 November 2018 but fail to acknowledge the resident’s correspondence relating to this and to make payment within good time. It was not until December 2019, over a year later, that the landlord recognised that the compensation was still outstanding. This was inappropriate.
  4. The Ombudsman is satisfied nonetheless, that the landlord acknowledged this omission in its final response. It conceded that the resident had received a poor service and explained it had raised the matter with the relevant departments, to ensure that this did not reoccur in the future. In recognition of its delay in processing the resident’s compensation and failure to respond, the landlord made an offer of £100. The landlord also agreed to make a payment of £30 for the days it was able to confirm that the resident had no heating. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
  5. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has suggested that the landlord had initially offered a rate of £3.60 per heater per day. This, however, does not align with the amount set out in the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of this.

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and while there were several failings, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord sufficiently recognised this too within its final response and made a reasonable offer of redress.
  2. It is clear from the evidence provided that the landlord’s communication with the resident was unacceptable. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord failed to maintain communication with the resident and to provide her with an update on both the outstanding repairs and the compensation which she was due. The landlord also failed to adequately respond to the resident’s complaint at stage one, to acknowledge the points she had raised, and to inform the resident of her available options should she wish to escalate her complaint.
  3. Moreover, the landlord failed to adhere to its complaints policy. As per the complaints process, the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint within three working days and offered a response within 10 working days. Contrary to this, however, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction (on 10 May 2019) until seven weeks later and this was unacceptable. A further delay can also be seen at stage two of the process, despite the deadline provided by the Ombudsman Service.
  4. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the landlord made mention to this within its final response. It accepted that it had offered a poor service, that it had not responded to the resident’s complaint or correspondence in a timely fashion, and that its initial complaint response was inadequate. It therefore made an award of £500 compensation in recognition of this.
  5. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was appropriate. Whilst offering the maximum (£100) award under its compensation policy for complaint handling, the landlord also made an additional award (£400) to ensure that the remedy was proportionate and fairly reflected the resident’s experience. The Ombudsman is content that this offer of redress was adequate in resolving this element of the complaint

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair request.
    2. No maladministration in respect of the compensation offered by the landlord for a lack of heating.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determination as:
    1. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s need for repair was inconsistent with its repair guidance and contrary to its repair obligations. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord undertook any remedial works to make good the resident’s ceiling and it is unclear whether the works completed to the roof were satisfactory. Moreover, the landlord failed to communicate with the resident and to recognise her continuous reports of a hole / crack in her ceiling. This subsequently meant that the issue went unresolved for an unreasonable length of time. The Ombudsman is dissatisfied that despite the resident’s complaints, the landlord failed to put things right and that no further steps were undertaken to understand the extent of the damage.
    2. The Ombudsman has been unable to identified records which indicate that the resident was without heating for a year, as she had suggested. It appears from the available evidence that the heating issue was reported in October 2018, and that this was resolved soon after. The Ombudsman has therefore considered the compensation offered by the landlord to be appropriate.
    3. While the landlord failed to adhere to the process set out in its complaints policy, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord adequately recognised this and that it had failed to uphold an appropriate service standard. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that following its identification of this failure, steps had been taken to improve the service and to ensure that it learnt from its shortfalls. What’s more, in order to put things right, the landlord made an offer a redress which was fair and proportionate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this satisfactorily resolved the matter.

 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In recognition of the maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair request, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £400 compensation. In the Ombudsman’s view, this fairly reflects:
  1. The landlord’s failure to uphold its repair responsibility. The Ombudsman has seen no proof that any action was taken to resolve the resident’s ceiling (following further reports in December 2018 and throughout 2019), or that action was taken to address the roof within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The distress and inconvenience that the resident would have experienced. This also includes the length of time that passed without action, an update or acknowledgement of the issue, as well as the trouble both chasing the landlord and the impact on the resident’s ability to fully enjoy her home.
  1. If not done already, the landlord should also contact the resident within four weeks of receiving the Ombudsman’s determination to arrange an inspection of her ceiling. Following this, it should outline how and when it plans to undertake the necessary work and should ensure that this is completed within the timeframe set out in its repair guidance. What’s more, the landlord should confirm (to the resident) whether the overarching roof issue has been resolved.
  2. The landlord should ensure that the compensation payment is made to the resident within four weeks of receiving this determination. This should include the £630 already promised to the resident within the landlord’s final response, if the amount has not already been paid.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure that in future cases, repair reports are acknowledged at the earliest opportunity and promptly addressed. The landlord should be proactive in seeking to remedy any issues reported by a resident (which it is responsible for) and should keep residents up to date with its plan of action. Any delays should be communicated to residents in order to manage expectations.