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

Peabody Trust (202007534)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007534

Peabody Trust

17 June 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 the landlord’s:

a.     handling of a leak in December 2019.

b.     handling of a leak in August 2020.

c.      complaint handling.

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 will not be investigated.

The landlord’s handling of a leak in December 2019

  1. Under Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
  2. The landlord attended the property above the resident’s in December 2019 to fix a leak. The resident complained about the 2019 leak in September 2020 and, on 28 September 2020, the landlord advised her that, due to the time that had passed, it could not consider this as part of the scope of the complaint.
  3. There is no evidence of the resident formally complaining about the leak from December 2019 prior to September 2020. Therefore, in line with paragraph 39(e), this investigation will focus on the complaint about the more recent leak in August 2020.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is the landlord’s tenant. She lives in a flat, with another flat situated above hers.
  2. There is no evidence of the resident’s first report to the landlord regarding a leak from the property above hers. However, in later communication, the landlord confirmed that the resident first discovered the leak on 24 August 2020.
  3. On 7 September 2020 the landlord’s decorating contractor attended the property. The contractor reported that there was “Flood damage from flat above. Kitchen ceiling and walls.” He provided a quote for the decorating works.
  4. Following a call with the landlord, the resident sent an email on 10 September 2020. She thanked the landlord for agreeing to send a plumber to investigate the leak, and for telling her who to contact about compensation for damage to her belongings, but complained about damages caused by the leak. The landlord raised a complaint regarding the matter on 23 September 2020.
  5. An inspection report, dated 24 September 2020, says that the landlord found a slight leak under the kitchen sink in the property above the resident’s. It fixed this and found no further leaks.
  6. Following a call with the resident, on 28 September 2020, the landlord sent her an email. It noted that the resident had explained that in January 2020 she was temporarily staying away from the property but, due to the covid lockdown, she did not return home (and discover the leak) until 24 August 2020. The landlord said that the resident had advised that her family was periodically checking the property but, as there was no electricity being supplied to the property at the time, they may have overlooked any leaks that were present.
  7. The resident replied to the landlord on 29 September 2020 and clarified that she was away from the property between March 2020 and August 2020, and that there was electricity at the property from April 2020, so somebody would have noticed the leak. The resident confirmed that she reported the leak when she returned to the property, and noticed this on 24 August 2020, but the landlord initially only sent a decorator. She detailed her desired outcomes to her complaint. These included an investigation of the property above by a surveyor or plumber and receive a report on their findings, for the decorative works to be completed, and the landlord to advise her of “any alternative course of action” regarding compensation.
  8. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident on 8 October 2020. It said that, had the resident occupied the property as she should have been, she may have identified the leak earlier than August 2020, and the damage to her property could have been less substantial than it was. The landlord said that, although there was a delay between the resident becoming aware of the problem and the landlord raising the repair, it met its service level agreement of 35 days for a general needs repair. Accordingly, the landlord did not find a service failure in how it resolved the leak. It also advised that a surveyor inspection was not required as the leak was resolved by its contractor. The landlord confirmed that it would not compensate residents for damage to their personal items, as these should be covered by their contents insurance policy. It said that decorative works had been approved and were scheduled for 26 October 2020.
  9. There was further correspondence between the landlord and resident about the complaint. The landlord’s internal records from 15 October 2020 say that the resident asked for her complaint to be investigated by “someone more senior”, and she was advised that the landlord had escalated the complaint, as per its process. The landlord also updated the resident about the escalation by email.
  10. On 22 October 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and apologised for the delay. It asked the resident to explain why she was dissatisfied, and advised that it aimed to complete the review on or before 12 November 2020.
  11. Between 22 and 24 October 2020 the resident sent the landlord further information, including a letter and photos of damage to her belongings. In the resident’s letter, she said she was unhappy that the landlord:

a.     Did not advise her of the nature and cause of the leak (and the remedial action taken). The resident asked for a copy of the plumber’s report.

b.     Did not advise her whether she was in a position to make a claim against her neighbours on their insurance policy. She asked the landlord to “establish liability for the damages and distress (as this [was] the third leak to occur from [the flat above])” and if she was due compensation.

c.      Gave inaccurate information in its initial complaint response, specifically related to the time the resident was away from the property and the time it was without electricity. The resident asked to “have a formal report compiled to reflect the information that [she] submitted accurately”.

d.     Informed the landlord’s original complaint officer (who subsequently emailed her) that she had asked for her case to be transferred to someone else due to “interpersonal interaction difficulties”.

  1. On 24 October 2020, the resident sent the landlord pictures of products of similar specification and brands to those she said had been damaged. This was for examples of the prices, as she no longer held receipts for the items. The resident asked for compensation to cover the replacement of the items and the distress and inconvenienced caused.
  2. On 29 October 2020 the landlord received a completion report from the decorating contractor.
  3. On 13 November 2020 the resident asked for an update on her complaint. The landlord replied that was still reviewing the complaint, but in the meantime its contractor was trying to contact the resident to book follow-on works. It asked the resident to confirm that works were still required and, if so, when she was available.
  4. On 16 November 2020, 24 December 2020, and 4 January 2021, the landlord extended its target date to respond to the resident’s complaint.
  5. In the landlord’s final complaint response, dated 15 January 2021, it detailed the causes of the leaks in December 2019 and September 2020. It explained that the required works were completed within the required timeframes. The landlord confirmed that there was no reoccurring leak, and that leaks may occur from time to time due to wear and tear to pipes. It concluded that it would not offer the resident compensation, as it completed the necessary repairs within the relevant timeframes.
  6. The landlord noted that, at stage one of the complaint, there was discussion about the time that the resident was away from the property. It apologised for any confusion, and thanked the resident for clarifying matters. It confirmed that its response at stage two was separate, and it would not re-issue an amended version of the stage one response. The landlord explained that the information used to review the complaint did not rely on how long the resident was away from the property, but that the landlord completed the repairs within the required time frames once the leaks were reported.
  7.  The landlord said that it found no liability or negligence by the landlord or neighbour, and compensation would not be considered for the resident’s damaged items. It directed her to claim on her own contents insurance if she wished to do so, and clarified that its complaints process could not resolve “insurance claims and appeals including damage to personal possessions and personal injury accidents which should be referred to the relevant insurers”.
  8. The landlord acknowledged shortcomings in its complaint handling, including its delay completing the stage one complaint, and its delay in responding at stage two. It said that it would consider amending its procedures, so that that should someone want a case to be re-assigned to another officer in future “full consideration is given to this request vs escalating to stage two”. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for “any delays, confusion or poor communication” in the complaints process, and directed the resident to contact this Service, if she remained dissatisfied with its final response to her complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a leak in August 2020

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy classes emergency repairs as repairs needed to avoid an immediate danger to personal health or safety or serious damage to property. These repairs will be completed or made safe within 24 hours. Routine repairs (standard repairs where there are no risks to either the resident or property) will be completed within a maximum of 35 days. The repairs policy says that it is the resident’s responsibility to tell the landlord promptly about any repair that it is responsible for to the outside or inside of the property, to any area that they share with neighbours, or any indoor installation.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will not make compensation payments where a claim can be made on home contents or buildings insurance. It says that residents are expected to take out adequate home contents insurance for their furniture, decoration and personal possessions to insure them against accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage, burglary and so on.
  3. The resident explained she discovered and reported the leak on 24 August 2020. There is evidence of the resident contacting the landlord on 10 September 2020, and it was fixed on 24 September 2020. The landlord can only be responsible for completing repairs that have been reported by the resident, as confirmed in its repairs policy. The landlord confirmed that it classed the repair as “routine” and therefore the landlord met the 35–day timescale for such repairs, as it completed the work in 31 days.  As the leak was described as “slight” and there is no evidence that it posed a risk to health or safety, or of serious damage to the property, the landlord’s decision to class the repair as “routine” was reasonable. The landlord’s decorator attended to remedy the water damage to the decorations affected within a reasonable timeframe because this was within 35 days of the landlord fixing the leak.
  4. Because there was no service failure in the landlord’s handling of the leak, there were no grounds for it to offer compensation for any damage caused to the resident’s belongings. Its explanation that the resident should instead claim through her home contents insurance was appropriate, and in line with its compensation policy. While the landlord was not obliged to help the resident redecorate after the leak, it used its discretion to do so. Therefore, the landlord’s response to the resident’s compensation request was reasonable.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

  1. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for its delays in responding to the complaint, and for any errors in its initial response about the time that the resident was away from her property. It also confirmed that it will review its processes for any resident’s request for a different officer. Landlords are generally not obligated to change the complaints handler at a resident’s request, unless there are specific special circumstances. The landlord would only be expected to review its processes to ensure that it robustly manages a tenant’s expectations if they were to make such a request. The landlord acted fairly in addressing these matters at stage two and, considering that the inaccuracies did not have any impact on the substantiative issue of the complaint, its compensation offer was both reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak from the property above the resident’s in August 2020.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has provided reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint, which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has met its obligations by repairing the leak from the property above within the timescales in its repairs policy and has also completed remedial decoration. Because no service failure has been identified, the landlord directing the resident to her own contents insurers was reasonable, and again in line with its repairs policy.  The landlord has acknowledged, addressed and offered compensation for its shortcomings in handling the resident’s complaint, which was proportionate to the impact that the matter had on the resident and the overall outcome.