Peabody Trust (202014675)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014675

Peabody Trust

22 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 concerns:
   1. the level of compensation offered to the resident following a water leak in his property
   2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing water leak.

Jurisdiction

2. 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.
3. In accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
4. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, he has explained that there is an ongoing leak in his home following the completion of the landlord’s investigations in October 2020. However, in line with paragraph 39(a), this issue will not be considered in this investigation. The resident should raise it with the landlord first, and then, once the landlord has fully investigated it, he can bring it to this Service if necessary.

Background and summary of events

5. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord.
6. The landlord later explained in its stage one complaint response that “the initial complaint was reported” on 13 March 2019. It is unclear whether this was when the resident first reported a leak, or first complained about the landlord’s handling of it. The leak was coming through the top window from an external wall.
7. The landlord’s repair records show that on 25 November 2019 it asked its contractors for a quote for a repair appointment. It then arranged two appointments, one for 9 December, and another for 19 December. It is unclear from the records what the repair issue was, and what the contractors did on either appointment.
8. On 23 December 2019 the resident complained to the landlord. He said that since he first reported the leak in March, he had “to chase this every step of the way”. He said that the leak had caused damage to the walls and the wood flooring. He asked for the landlord to be “proactive and sort this”. It is apparent that the landlord dealt with this as an informal complaint.
9. On 30 December 2019 the landlord updated the resident. It said that its contractors had advised they needed to investigate the neighbour’s balcony. It said that its contractors would contact the neighbour to arrange an appointment.
10. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 January 2020. He said that he was dissatisfied with the lack of updates he had received about the repair. He asked whether the contractors had accessed the neighbour’s property.
11. The landlord responded to the resident on 28 January 2020. It said that it could not update him on the work at the neighbour’s property due to confidentiality. It said that the contractors had not advised if that work had been completed.
12. On 28 January 2020 the resident asked the landlord to fix the damage in his home.
13. The landlord later explained in its stage one complaint response that on 26 February 2020 the resident reported a water leak into his living room.
14. The landlord advised the resident on 12 March 2020 that, as a leaseholder, he was responsible for “any repairs”, and would need to claim on his home contents insurance for accidental damage.
15. The resident responded to the landlord on 12 March 2020. He said that the damage was due to its “inability to fix a simple leak that [was] fully [its] responsibility”. He said that as it had taken a year to resolve the leak, he would not claim on his insurance.
16. On 31 March 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint. He reiterated what he had said on 12 March. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day.
17. On 20 May 2020 the landlord advised the resident that its contractors had placed all work on hold due to the COVID-19 lockdown. It said that it would also put his complaint on hold.
18. The contractors completed repairs to stop the leak on 2 July 2020. The landlord’s records show that they cleared the hopper and repaired the guttering installation.
19. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 17 July 2020. It apologised for the delay in responding. It also apologised for the delay in completing the repairs, and acknowledged that they could have been done sooner.
20. The landlord said that it did not usually compensate leaseholders for damages within their property. It said that it normally contributed towards the excess for an insurance claim, but as the resident did not have insurance (it is unclear when the resident advised it of this) it would offer him £150. This comprised of £50 towards paints/brushes/wallpaper, and £100 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience of the delay in completing the repair. It concluded by explaining how he could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
21. On 22 July 2020 the resident explained to the landlord that he did not think £150 was sufficient to repair the damage to his walls and floor. He said that the landlord could arrange for its contractors to complete the repair.
22. The landlord responded to the resident on 28 July 2020. It reiterated why it had decided to offer him £150. It said its offer was a goodwill gesture to help towards the repairs, and not to pay for the whole repair. It said that its contractors would not be covered to complete the repairs.
23. The resident confirmed to the landlord on 29 July 2020 that he wanted to escalate his complaint. He then advised on 30 July that as an outcome to his complaint he wanted the repairs in his home to be completed. He said that he could arrange for a quote with an external contractor.
24. On 28 August 2020 the landlord emailed the resident. It asked him to explain to what extent he wanted it to “make good the works in [his] property”. It said that it could consider paying for an external contractor to complete the work, or pay the resident to complete them.
25. On 9 September 2020 the landlord emailed the resident. It explained that its contractors could not carry out the repair work, as that would make it liable for any subsequent issues or replacements. It asked the resident to either provide it with three quotes from external contractors for it to consider, or suggest a gesture of goodwill towards his estimated costs to resolve the issue.
26. On 7 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord. He said that he had struggled to obtain quotes. He attached one quote that he had received which totalled £780.
27. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 15 October 2020. It said that it did not carry out internal work for leaseholders. It said that it would expect him to claim on his contents insurance, and it would pay the excess fee. It said that it would offer the resident an additional £400 as a proportion to the estimated costs of the repair. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied. 

Assessment and findings

28. The resident’s lease agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairing the drains, sewers, gutters, ducts, and any other conducting media in, under, and upon the building. The resident is responsible for keeping his home in good and substantial repair and condition, and carrying out any decoration.
29. On the landlord’s website it encourages residents to take out home contents insurance. Its compensation policy states that it may refund an insurance excess as a goodwill gesture if it has been negligent in its handling of a repair. It will also offer up to a maximum of £400 compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience when a resident has been greatly impacted by any failings on its behalf.
30. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response it acknowledged that it had delayed resolving the leak. It apologised for this, and offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £100 for his time, trouble, and the inconvenience caused, and £50 to go towards decoration materials. In its stage two complaint response, it then offered him a further £400 as a proportion of the estimated costs for the repair to the damages in his home.
31. As explained above in paragraph 29, in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy it may offer the refund the resident their excess fee. In this case, as the resident did not have home contents insurance, the landlord offered to contribute towards the costs of an external contractor. This was a reasonable and pragmatic suggestion from the landlord. It demonstrated that it had sought an alternative resolution which took into consideration the resident’s personal circumstance of not having contents insurance despite the general expectation (and landlord’s advice) that home owners should have insurance for this type of eventuality.
32. The landlord’s total offer of £550 exceeded what its policy deemed appropriate in cases where a resident has been greatly impacted by its failings. It was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance for cases in which the landlord’s failings have not caused any significant or permanent impact. Its offer was therefore reasonable, and proportionate to the inconvenience experienced as a result of its delays.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

34. The landlord acknowledged its delays, apologised for them, and made a reasonable offer of compensation to contribute to the repair of the damages in the resident’s home.