Peabody Trust (202015707)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015707

Peabody Trust

18 January 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. His decant and remedial repairs to the property following a leak.
2. The capping of the gas supply to the property and repairs to the boiler.
3. His associated complaint.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, his tenancy at the property (a one bedroom flat) commenced on 12 January 2015. The resident passed away on 18 January 2023 whilst his complaint was awaiting investigation by this Service.
The resident was recorded as vulnerable by the landlord due to him being visually impaired. He was also a wheelchair user and required regular hospital attendance for dialysis.
On 17 September 2019 the landlord’s gas contractor capped the gas supply to the property at the meter having been unable to gain access to complete the annual gas safety inspection.
On 23 September 2019 the resident contacted the landlord’s gas contractor to advise that he was in hospital and likely to remain there for a prolonged period. He said that he would contact the landlord when he was discharged from hospital to arrange the uncapping of the gas.
On 9 December 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to request that its gas contractor stop contacting him about access to the property as it was impacting his mental health. He again stated he would contact the landlord to arrange access once he was discharged from hospital.

Decant Policy

The landlord’s decant policy states that it will provide residents with appropriate support, particularly for the most vulnerable, and clear information on their housing options in all circumstances. It commits to keeping residents informed of the progress of works to their home.
The policy says that, in the event of an emergency decant, the landlord will first explore whether residents can stay with family and friends. If this is not possible it will arrange with the relevant local authority or provide suitable temporary accommodation in an apartment, hotel or one of its homes.
Should a resident stay with family or friends during a decant period, the policy allows the landlord to make a payment to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience. This is set at £50 per week for a resident of a one bedroom property.
Where a temporary decant is required the landlord says it will make one offer of accommodation and take into consideration the needs of vulnerable residents.

Repairs Policy

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the timescales within which it will respond to repairs, as categorised by urgency. It says it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and “non-urgent repairs” within 28 calendar days.

Complaint policy and procedure

The landlord’s complaints policy says that, in order to ensure effective investigation, all complaints should be made within six months of when the event occurred or became known to the complainant.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It states that at stage 1 it will acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days and formally respond within 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances the response can be delayed by a further 10 working days, but this should be communicated to the resident in advance.
The landlord’s complaints process documents says that sometimes a stage 1 response will confirm further actions required to resolve a complaint and details of how it will carry these out. Once all of these actions have been completed it will issue a “final stage 1 response”.
If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the process and the landlord will acknowledge the request within 3 working days, providing a response within the next 15 working days. The procedure allows a further extension of up to ten working days to provide the stage 2 response if required, as long as the resident is notified.

Scope of investigation

The resident’s complaint regarding the capping of the gas supply at the property dates back to the initial capping in 2019. The landlord has stated that prior to the resident making his complaint on 10 March 2021, he had not raised this issue with it.
This investigation will therefore consider the landlord’s handling of the capped gas supply from September 2020 onwards. This is when the landlord’s contractor completed the latest gas safety inspection before the resident’s complaint and is approximately six months prior to when the resident’s complaint was logged – in keeping with the timeframe set by the landlord’s complaints policy.

Summary of events

The landlord’s gas contractor carried out the annual gas safety inspection at the property on 4 September 2020. It noted that the gas supply at the property remained capped off.
On 9 March 2021 the resident discovered a leak into his property from the flat above, which was also owned by the landlord. The landlord’s repairs contractor attended the resident’s property and turned off the electricity supply as a safety precaution.
The landlord offered to decant the resident to a hotel, but he declined due to concerns about the risk of COVID-19 in such an environment. The landlord offered to contact the resident’s support worker, which he also declined.
The resident contacted this Service on 10 March 2021. He said that he had slept in the communal stairwell of some neighbouring flats the previous night due to the property being “sodden”. He explained he was hesitant to be decanted due to having pets in the property and medical professionals visiting several times a day, including to collect him for hospital appointments. He also raised that the property had not had a gas supply for the past 2 years. This Service phoned the landlord the same day to pass on this information as a safeguarding concern.
Also on 10 March 2021, the landlord’s repairs contractor resolved the leak. It advised the resident that it would take 3 weeks for the property to dry out.
On 11 March 2021, the landlord logged a complaint based on the contact from this Service.
An internal email sent by the landlord on 12 March 2021 recorded that the resident “requires adequate cleaning facilities, due to his health conditions and he also has a colostomy bag which needs to be cleaned/changed regularly. As it stands the tenant has not used the central heating at his flat, due to the Gas safety check being 2 years overdue. [The resident] is sleeping in the communal area in the block next to his house, as it he stated it is warmer to stay there an in his flat which is not safe for him, and he doesn’t has an alternative accommodation”. It requested a surveyor to attend the property as soon as possible and suggested the resident may need to be decanted.
On 15 March 2021, the resident informed this Service that he was still sleeping in the communal area of the flats. He said the landlord’s surveyor had not attended and nobody had been to look at the property.
The landlord’s repairs contractor attended the property on 24 March 2021. The landlord’s repairs log indicates that a joiner was sent and assessed damage to the walls, ceiling and an internal door.
The repairs contractor sent an electrician to the property on 7 April 2021 and reinstated the electricity. The electrician noted that “leak was above a wall, wall has no electric points on it. All safe.” On or around the same date the contractor also carried out repairs to the walls and ceiling of the property, including decoration.
On 9 April 2021, the resident phoned the landlord to ask whether the property was now safe for him to return to. He contacted this Service on 12 April 2021 to say that he was still unclear if he was able to return.
The landlord provided what this report will refer to as its ‘interim’ stage 1 complaint response on 4 May 2021. It said that:
1. All works to the property following the leak had now been completed and electricity restored.
2. The resident had made it aware the contractor had painted a wall in the wrong colour, and it would arrange for this to be repainted.
3. The property had a valid gas safety certificate, but it had requested its gas contractor to inspect the boiler as this had not been used in some time.
4. It would make an offer of compensation for service failures once the outstanding actions had been completed – in order to take account of any further service failures that may occur.
The landlord’s gas contractor visited the property on 10 May 2021. It uncapped the gas supply but found that the boiler was in unsafe condition and so decommissioned it.
This Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 14 June 2021 and asked it to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process as the boiler was still decommissioned. The landlord responded on 30 June 2021. It said it had spoken with the resident who was happy for his complaint to remain at stage 1 as the resolution was nearly complete. It said it would provide him with a “final stage one response” after which he could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
The landlord’s gas contractor restored the resident’s boiler to working order on 19 July 2021.
The landlord provided its “final stage one response” on 5 August 2021. It said that:
1. Its staff had “exhausted all there options” with regards to assisting him in the aftermath of the leak and there had been “nothing else they can do to help”.
2. It apologised for the delay in repairing the boiler but claimed that this was partly due to booking in appointments around the resident’s hospital appointments and collecting the keys from his sister’s property.
3. As remedial repairs were completed within the 35 days its policy allows, there was no service failure which required compensation.
4. Its records showed that the resident had not reported any issues with his heating or hot water to it prior to his complaint, so there was no service failure which required compensation.
Due to the resident’s visual impairment, the landlord phoned him the same day to discuss its written stage 1 response. During the call the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 as he was dissatisfied with no offer of compensation being made, when he had been told previously that it would be.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 August 2021 acknowledging his request to escalate his complaint. It said it aimed to respond by 14 September 2021.
On 10 September 2021, the landlord phoned the resident and extended the timeframe for its stage 2 response to 17 September 2021. On 17 September 2021 the landlord extended the timeframe again to 24 September 2021.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 24 September 2021. It said that:
1. It had attended to the leak into the resident’s property as an emergency and completed the follow on works within 28 days, which it deemed “reasonable”.
2. It had offered to decant the resident, but he had refused and advised he would make his own arrangements including staying with a relative.
3. The gas supply to the property had been capped for safety reasons in 2019. A works order to uncap the supply had been cancelled in December 2019 at the resident’s request and he had not contacted the landlord to rearrange this.
4. It would have been “prudent” for its gas contractor to arrange for the gas to be uncapped or the matter “looked further into” following the gas safety inspection of 4 September 2020 but it had no records to show that this was considered.
5. After receiving the resident’s complaint, it had arranged for the boiler to be inspected and repaired.
6. It had awarded him compensation of £40 for the delays in providing its stage 2 complaint response and £200 for the “time trouble and inconvenience” caused by its gas contractor not following up on the capped supply in 2020 and its repairs contractor painting the wall the incorrect colour.

Assessment and findings

Decant and remedial repairs

As outlined in its final stage 1 complaint response, the landlord’s repairs contractor attended to the leak into the resident’s property as an emergency on the day it was reported and fully repaired the leak by the following day. This was reasonable and in keeping with the landlord’s repairs policy.
During its emergency attendance on 9 March 2021, the landlord’s repairs contractor isolated the electricity in the property and later advised that it would take 3 weeks for the property to dry out from the leak. Upon receiving this information, the landlord appropriately offered to decant the resident.
The resident declined the landlord’s offer of a decant to a hotel due to concerns about COVID-19 transmission in the hotel environment, and the fact he had pets in the property which would not have been able to go with him. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that the resident had informed it he would make his own “alternative arrangements…including staying with a relative”. It was reasonable for the landlord to take no further action at that time based on what the resident had told it, although it is noted that it provided no evidence it made him aware of the payment of £50 per week which its decant policy allows for residents staying with friends or family as an emergency decant.
This Service contacted the landlord on 10 March 2021 to make it aware that the vulnerable resident had spent the previous night sleeping in the communal area of the flats adjacent to his home. The landlord has not provided records of any action taken in response to this, despite it acknowledging the situation in an internal email of 12 March 2021. Whilst it is not clear how many nights the resident spent sleeping in the communal area, his communication with this Service evidences that he was still doing so on the 15 March 2021 – 5 days after this Service had made the landlord aware.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response asserted that it had its staff had “exhausted all there (sic) options” and “there was nothing else they can do to help”. However, the landlord’s decant policy says that it “will arrange with the relevant local authority or provide suitable temporary accommodation in an apartment, hotel or one of our homes”. The landlord has not evidenced that it considered or discounted approaching the local authority for assistance, booking a serviced apartment or making use of any empty properties in its own stock – all options which could have allowed the resident to take his pets with him, reduced his concerns about transmission of COVID-19 and made visits by medical professionals more straightforward.
The landlord failed to meet its decant policy’s commitment to provide its vulnerable resident with appropriate support and clear information on his housing options. Nor did it demonstrate that it had considered his individual needs when making its decant offer. Instead, the landlord left the vulnerable resident effectively homeless whilst his property was uninhabitable and failed to act even when notified of that fact by this Service.
The landlord’s repairs contractor did not visit the property until 24 March 2021 and an electrician did not attend to reinstate the electricity until 7 April 2021 – which exceeded the 3 weeks the contractor had stated was required for the property to dry out by a full week. The electrician’s notes recorded that “leak was above a wall, wall has no electric points on it. All safe”. Based on this it is reasonable to believe that had the landlord inspected the property sooner, the electricity could have been restored and drying out of the property expedited by use of equipment such as dehumidifiers.
Once the electricity had been restored, the landlord acted swiftly in arranging for its repairs contactor to ‘make good’ the damage, which was completed within a few days. It also reasonably arranged for a wall to be repainted after the resident informed it that the incorrect colour paint had been used.
However, it is evident that the landlord did not appropriately communicate with the resident and keep him updated about the progress of works, as its decant policy commits that it will. As late as 12 April 2021 the resident told this Service that he was still residing elsewhere and unsure if it was safe to return to the property – despite the electrician having restored power and deemed it safe nearly a week beforehand.
In summary, the landlord has not provided evidence that it responded appropriately to the fact that the vulnerable resident was sleeping in a communal area. It failed to consider the resident’s individual needs and explore all reasonable decant options with him, as detailed in its policy, or to raise safeguarding concerns with the relevant professionals. The landlord did not have an electrician inspect the property until 4 weeks after the leak had been resolved – despite its contractor advising the property should dry out in 3 weeks. It then failed to appropriately communicate to the resident that it was safe for him to return to the property. The significant detriment caused to the resident by these failures amounts to severe maladministration.

Capping of gas supply and repairs to boiler

The landlord’s records do not contain any evidence that the resident had contacted it to raise the fact that the property was without gas, prior to the Ombudsman doing so on 10 March 2021 on his behalf.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that its gas contractor should have made enquiries when it visited for the 2020 gas safety inspection and found the gas supply to the property capped. It would also be reasonable to expect the landlord to maintain its own record of occupied properties where the gas supply had been capped and conduct follow up checks on these, especially where vulnerabilities are present within the household or there are potential welfare concerns.
As part of its interim stage 1 response of 4 May 2021, the landlord arranged for its gas contractor to visit the property and inspect the boiler on 10 May 2021. Considering the issue had been raised as a complaint on 10 March 2021, and the property had been safe to inhabit/work in since at least 7 April 2021 this was an unreasonable delay which the landlord has not provided an explanation for.
On 10 May 2021, the landlord’s gas contractor uncapped the gas supply but found that repairs were required to the boiler which was subsequently decommissioned. The boiler was not restored to full working order until 19 July 2021.
Whilst the difficulties in arranging access around the resident’s hospital appointments, described in the landlord’s final stage 1 complaint response, is noted and provides some mitigation, this still represented an unreasonable delay in completing the boiler repairs. Although the resident had already been living in the property without gas for an extended period this does not mitigate such a delay – which could reasonably be considered to necessitate a decant of its own.
The landlord’s final stage 1 complaint response acknowledged that repairs to the boiler were “dragged out” and said it was “duly sorry for the delay”. However, it failed to offer any compensation for this. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not acknowledge the delays at all, only offering compensation for its gas contractor failing to ‘follow up’ with the resident in 2020 to arrange to uncap the gas supply.
In summary, the landlord failed to make reasonable enquiries as to why the vulnerable resident’s gas supply had been capped for over a year until the matter was brought to its attention by way of his complaint. The landlord then delayed unreasonably in repairing the boiler at the property leaving the resident without heating or hot water for a further 2 months after the gas had been uncapped. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to offer reasonable redress for the delays in repairing the boiler and this represents maladministration.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s ‘Complaint Handling Code’ (the Code), as in force at the time of complaint, stated that a landlord’s complaints procedure should consist of 2 stages with a response at stage 1 provided within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint.
The landlord’s use of an interim stage 1 response, although allowed for by its own policy, was not in keeping with the Code or the principle of fair and consistent dispute resolution. The ‘interim’ response effectively added a 3rd stage to the landlord’s complaints process which significantly delayed the resident in completing its internal complaints procedure and referring his complaint to this Service for investigation. The landlord’s complaints policy has since been updated to remove references to it providing more than one response at stage one of its process.
The landlord’s interim stage 1 complaint response was provided on 4 May 2021, 36 days after it logged his complaint, which was unreasonably far beyond the 10 working days the Code allowed. Its final stage 1 response was not provided until 5 August 2021 – nearly 5 months after the resident’s complaint had been logged. This was an unreasonable delay. Landlords should seek to resolve complaints at the earliest possible opportunity and provide a response when the answer to a complaint is known, not when all outstanding actions have been completed – as the landlord opted to do in this case.
Although the landlord’s interim stage 1 response explained that it wished to take account of any further service failures that may occur before it provided its offer of compensation, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make an offer based on the preceding events, which it would have been free to increase had it identified any further service failures which it felt necessitated compensation.
Despite its interim stage 1 response confirming that “compensation will be due in this case to address the service failings”, the landlord’s subsequent final stage 1 response completely reversed this position stating that “there are no signs of a service failure” and it would “not award any compensation”. This inconsistency caused disappointment to the resident who had been left for several months with the expectation that he would be offered compensation. Indeed, he cited this as his sole reason for escalating his complaint to stage 2 on 5 August 2021.
The landlord did not provide its stage 2 complaint response until 24 September 2021. This was 36 working days after the resident had requested to escalate his complaint and significantly exceeded the 15 working days that the landlord’s complaints policy allowed. However, the landlord acknowledged this delay within the stage 2 response, and an apology and reasonable offer of £40 compensation was made.
In summary, the landlord unreasonably delayed in providing its stage 1 complaint response, effectively introducing an unofficial 3rd stage, which left the resident stuck unable to progress his complaint for several months. The landlord then unreasonably reversed its previous position that it would offer the resident compensation, causing him to escalate his complaint in an attempt to obtain redress for its failings. This represents maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s decant and remedial repairs to the property following a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The capping of the gas supply to the property and repairs to the boiler.
1. The resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has not provided evidence that it responded appropriately to the fact that the vulnerable resident was sleeping in a communal area. It failed to consider the resident’s individual needs and explore all reasonable decant options with him, as detailed in its policy, or to raise safeguarding concerns with the relevant professionals. The landlord did not have an electrician inspect the property until 4 weeks after the leak had been resolved – despite its contractor advising the property should dry out in 3 weeks. It then failed to appropriately communicate to the resident that it was safe for him to return to the property.
In summary, the landlord failed to make reasonable enquiries as to why the vulnerable resident’s gas supply had been capped for over a year until the matter was brought to its attention by way of his complaint. The landlord then delayed unreasonably in repairing the boiler at the property leaving the resident without heating or hot water for a further 2 months after the gas had been uncapped. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to offer reasonable redress for the delays in repairing the boiler.
The landlord unreasonably delayed in providing its stage 1 complaint response, effectively introducing an unofficial 3rd stage, which left the resident stuck unable to progress his complaint for several months. The landlord then unreasonably reversed its previous position that it would offer the resident compensation, causing him to escalate his complaint in an attempt to obtain redress for its failings.

Orders

Within 3 months of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the executor/administrator of the late resident’s estate compensation of £3,450 composed of:
  1. £2,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the decant and remedial repairs following the leak.
  2. £250 which represents the £50 decant allowance for residents staying with family and friends, which should have been payable across a period of 5 weeks from 9 March 2021 to 12 April 2021.
  3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the capping of the gas supply and repairs to the boiler
  4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling

The £240 offered by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response can be deducted from this amount if already paid.

Write to the executor/administrator of the late resident’s estate apologising for the maladministration identified in this report.

This timescale is set giving due regard to legal processes around the late resident’s estate – which were ongoing at the time of this investigation.

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review its processes for monitoring cases where occupied properties have a capped gas supply, to ensure that appropriate enquiries and welfare checks are made with residents.
2. Review its practices where electricity is turned off within properties due to escape of water, ensuring that regular reviews of the situation are carried out to support the timely restoration of power and reoccupation of the property.
3. Take steps to remind relevant staff members of its decant policy, and that its offering can extend beyond just hotels – which may be unsuitable for some households.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.