Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Peabody Trust (202016983)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016983

Peabody Trust

13 September 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the reports of a leak within the resident’s property which subsequently resulted in a ceiling collapse.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s records show the resident reported a leak from her bedroom ceiling on 17 December 2019. The landlord booked an appointment to attend on 6 January 2020. On 2 January 2020 the ceiling collapsed. A contractor attended that day to make the ceiling safe. They noted that the water tank in the loft may have caused the leak, and recommended follow on work. On 7 January 2020 the resident reported that the tank was leaking. A contractor attended that day to make it safe and stop the leak. All follow on work to fully repair the ceiling was completed on 30 October 2020.
  3. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 14 December 2020. He said the resident had advised that she had been constantly chasing it to carry out repairs following the ceiling collapse. She said the collapse caused damage to her bed, carpet, and soft furnishing. She said she could not afford to replace her damaged belongings. It is understood that the landlord considered this the resident’s stage one complaint.
  4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 31 December 2020. It said it made a commitment on 19 December 2019 to complete repairs to the ceiling by the end of January 2020 but did not. It said in February 2020 it carried out various inspections and appointments, then due to the COVID-19 pandemic it suspended all non-urgent work. It apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said it completed the repair on 26 October 2020 (this is different to what its records show). It explained it did not compensate for damages to personal belongings as residents were expected to take out home contents insurance to protect themselves against accidental damage, loss, or water damage. It stated its complaint policy was not intended to replace or compensate for this. It advised her to make a claim through her contents insurance. It explained it may refund an insurance excess if it was found to be negligent in handling the repair. It said if she felt it was liable for the damaged belongings, she could submit a claim to its insurance team. It provided contact details for its team. It offered her £550.98 compensation. £250 for time, trouble and inconvenience, £70 for seven missed appointments, £230.89 for 44 weeks partial room loss.
  5. On 25 January 2021 the landlord asked the resident whether she accepted its offer of compensation. It advised her complaint was now closed. The resident accepted its offer the following day. She said she would make a claim through its insurers for the damages.
  6. On 1 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. She referred to its stage one complaint response. She said her contents insurance “was taken out for [her] benefit and not for the incompetence of [her] landlord”. She said as the landlord was responsible for the water tank, she should “not have to find extra money to pay for increase in [her] insurance premium as [she was] not liable for a fault that was caused”. She said she attempted to make a claim with its insurers, and they signposted her to her contents insurance. She asked the landlord to reimburse her for her damaged belongings.
  7. The landlord responded to the resident that day. It said incidents sometimes occurred which it, or the resident could not control. It said it would be in contact to discuss the matter further. The landlord also called the resident that day. Its records show it explained it could not escalate her complaint as she had accepted its offer of compensation. The resident said it had multiple stages as per its complaint policy but had only handled hers at stage one.
  8. The resident contacted this Service on 25 March 2021. She said she disputed the landlord’s advice that she claims on her contents insurance, as it had accepted liability. We advised the resident to escalate her complaint.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 April 2021. The landlord responded that day and asked her to confirm which complaint she wanted it to escalate (it is unclear what her other complaints were about). The resident reiterated her email from 1 March. The landlord asked her to confirm how the items were damaged. The resident said it was due to the collapsed ceiling. She asked the landlord for an update on her request on 11 June.
  10. On 30 June 2021 the landlord referred the resident to its stage one complaint response concerning how to make a claim for damaged belongings.
  11. Following contact from the resident, this Service asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 3 September 2021.
  12. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint on 6 September 2021. It emailed her again on 13 September following a phone call to summarise their discussion. It said she was dissatisfied it had advised her to make a claim on her contents insurance after being told to use the landlord’s insurance. She was also dissatisfied the landlord had not considered her damaged items when it initially offered compensation
  13. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 14 September 2021. It said the resident could claim for damaged items through either her contents insurance, or its insurance. It said a claim would only be accepted by its insurance team if the damage was due to negligence on its behalf. It acknowledged that her claim with its insurers had been rejected. It said it did not offer compensation for damaged items as it could be claimed through alternative means. It said it was right for it to refer her to its insurers, but it could not guarantee that they would pay out. It said if its insurers did not accept the claim, it did not mean it was responsible for damaged items. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Request for compensation for damaged belongings

  1. The resident’s complaint is focused on the damaged caused by the leak at the start of 2020, as opposed to the time taken for the remedial works which were then affected by Covid-19.
  2. The resident has explained that they believe the landlord should pay for damaged items as the landlord is responsible for the water tank which leaked. The resident does not believe it is fair that they should pay for any potential increase in insurance premiums when they believe the leak was the landlord’s fault.
  3. In general, the landlord was correct to explain that residents are advised to arrange their own contents insurance. A repair issue that results in damage to a resident’s belongings is not necessarily evidence of a failure by the landlord. The landlord’s obligation is to complete any repairs in accordance with its policy once it is aware of the repair issue. If it does this, and damage has still been caused, then it is reasonable for the resident to be expected to claim for this through their own insurer.
  4. Ultimately if the resident’s insurer believes the landlord to be liable it is then able to pursue the landlord for any costs (and to take this into account when determining any future potential premiums). The Housing Ombudsman is not able to determine liability where it is disputed by the two parties, only the insurers or the courts are able to determine this.
  5. The landlord has offered some redress £550.98. However this compensation is focused on the inconvenience of the time taken to complete the remedial repairs as it specified time and trouble, partial room loss for 44 weeks and missed appointments. Therefore it did not respond to the handling of the original leak and ceiling collapse.
  6. The ceiling collapse and reported water tank leak were both attended the same day and therefore within the landlord’s policy timescales.
  7. However the resident originally reported a ceiling leak on 17 December 2019 and the repair was not booked until 6 January, 11 working days later. The actual waiting period was 20 days, which is relevant as it involved a leak and emergency repairs may be possible outside of normal working times. The landlord’s repair policy refers to non urgent (28 days), programmed (30 days) or emergency (same day) types of repair. Given these categories it is reasonable to assume a leak would be considered an emergency and not a non-urgent type. Furthermore the compensation policy refers to the time taken for emergency defects (eg uncontainable leaks) as 1 day; and urgent defects (eg slow leaks) as 5 days.
  8. Therefore the landlord’s initial response to the first report of the leak was overdue. This has not been acknowledged in the complaint response or the associated compensation offers. As such it also does not appear to have featured in any formal assessment of the potential cause of the ceiling collapse.
  9. In addition to this, the operative noted the water tank may have been leaking when they attended to make the ceiling safe, and this may have caused the collapse. The landlord did not arrange a repair (same day) until the resident then raised the matter themselves on 7 January. It is not clear why the landlord did not raise a similar urgent repair following the contractor’s visit and associated comments on 2 January.
  10. As explained above, the Ombudsman cannot determine liability for the resident’s damaged belongings. Where there is disputed liability it is reasonable for the landlord to direct residents to their own insurers. All residents are advised to have contents insurance to ensure help with any unexpected costs, and to help pursue costs where liability is disputed.
  11. However there does appear to have been delays in the landlord’s initial repair response. The landlord did not identify these in its complaint response and as such these were not included in the resident’s submission to the landlord’s own insurer. Regardless of any claim for any damages, the landlord would be expected to make an offer of redress for the delays in its repair service.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s website explains that residents have ten working days from when it issues its stage one complaint response, to escalate their complaint. If the resident does not contact it, it will close the case.
  2. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 31 December 2020. The resident accepted its compensation offer on 26 January 2021, and it advised that her complaint was closed. She then explained on 1 March 2021 that she remained dissatisfied with its response to her request for compensation for damaged belongings. The landlord acknowledged her concerns but advised it could not escalate her complaint as she had accepted its compensation. She asked to escalate her complaint on 30 April, and chased a response on 11 June. On 30 June the landlord referred her to its stage one response. It escalated her complaint on 6 September following involvement from this Service.
  3. The landlord’s stage one complaint response advised the resident how she could escalate her complaint. However, it did not explain that she only had ten working days to do so (in line with its website). It is therefore understandable that the resident asked to escalate outside this timeframe. The landlord said she could not escalate her complaint, and referred her back to its stage one response. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that “if a landlord decides not to escalate a complaint it should provide an explanation to the resident. It should make clear that its previous response was its final response to the complaint and provide information on referral to the Housing Ombudsman”. The landlord did not do this.
  4. Furthermore compensation offers should not be used as ultimatums to curtail the complaint process. They are part of the options available to the landlord to try and reach an agreed resolution. The resident in this case returned with a further explanation as to why they felt it unreasonable to contact their insurer, and after they had contacted the landlord’s insurer as it had advised. A further response would have helped to address the resident’s concerns about their premiums, and to explain the limits of the landlord’s involvement with a claim against its own insurer. Furthermore it would also give a new member of staff the opportunity to review the handling of the original issue, which may have identified the repair delays noted above.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the reports of a leak within the resident’s property which subsequently resulted in a ceiling collapse.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. As a result of the determination above the landlord is ordered to pay within 4 weeks:
    1. £200 to acknowledge the distress caused by it not handling the initial leak report as an emergency (or urgent) repair.
    2. £50 to acknowledge the distress caused by it not handling the repair report from the operative about the water tank until prompted by the resident.
    3. £75 for the inconvenience caused by the complaint handling delays.