Peabody Trust (202101975)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101975

Peabody Trust

16 November 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

a. repairs following a water leak at the resident’s property, which caused a fly infestation as well as damp and mould.

b. the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a basement flat.
  2. The resident moved to the property in June 2020 and a short time later he reported to the landlord that the roof was leaking. There is no record of the date the fault was reported but the contractor contacted the landlord on 28 August 2020 asking if it had the correct contact number for the resident as it had been unable to contact him.
  3. The landlord visited the property on 4 September 2020 in response to a complaint that sewage was overflowing from an external drain. The landlord’s repair logs do not specify when the report was made but the landlord’s stage one complaint response said that this was treated as an emergency call.
  4. The landlord visited again on 10 September 2020 in response to a report of sewage backing up when the toilet was flushed.
  5. A CCTV inspection was carried out although no date is given for this in the landlord’s repair records. The contractor found that there was a blockage in the drain connected to the toilet, but they were unable to clear it successfully during this visit.
  6. The landlord arranged for the drain to be relocated from the bathroom to the garden which necessitated the resident being accommodated in a hotel as it was not possible for this work to be carried out while the property was occupied. The exact dates of the work and when the resident stayed in the hotel were not specified in the landlord’s records. The repair log states that the repair was closed on 7 October 2020.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 27 April 2021. In addition to confirming the records mentioned above, the landlord acknowledged that its contact records were incomplete and it was unable to confirm the dates when the resident contacted the landlord’s contractor to arrange repairs. The landlord also offered the resident £600 compensation but did not specify what it was for or how this sum was calculated.
  8. The resident replied to the landlord stating that there was no mention in its response of the damp on the bathroom wall, a slow flowing drain, rotten kitchen window frames and a damaged kitchen door.
  9. The landlord acknowledged escalation of the complaint to stage two of its internal process on 29 April 2021 and promised a response by 27 May 2021.
  10. The resident emailed pictures of the damage caused by the leak to the landlord on 11 May 2021
  11. The landlord issued its stage two response on 27 May 2021 which offered £952.40 compensation consisting of:

a. £450 for time and trouble and

b. £452.40, being a 15% rent reduction for loss of use of the bathroom from 5 June to 15 December 2020.

It is noted that the two sums mentioned above add up to £902.40, it is therefore not clear how the total of £952.40 was arrived at.

  1. The resident emailed and expressed dissatisfaction on 28 May 2021 with the work that was done, advising that he could still smell damp and advising that he would escalate the problem to this Service. The landlord agreed to ask a surveyor to carry out a further inspection.
  2. The blocked rainwater gulley was cleared on 21 June 2021.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 June 2021 accepting its offer of compensation but advising that he intended to refer his complaint to this Service to decide if the compensation was sufficient considering the circumstances.
  4. The landlord’s records show the compensation was paid to the resident in July 2021.
  5. The landlord reported on 7 July 2021 that the resident had not been replying to messages asking him to arrange a further appointment for the surveyor to visit his property.
  6. The landlord confirmed on 20 August 2021 that an appointment for the surveyor’s visit had been made for 25 August 2021.
  7. The survey on 25 August 2021 authorised the provision of two new windows and a new rear door and doorframe and repair of failing stone and brickwork which was allowing water penetration.
  8. The landlord arranged a further visit to the property for 27 August 2021. It is not clear from the information provided whether the outstanding repairs were completed during this visit.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy provides for emergency repairs to be completed or made safe within 24 hours and for routine repairs to be completed within 35 days.
  2. The landlord has a two stage complaints policy with a stage one complaint being acknowledged within three working days and responded to within ten working days. A stage two complaint should be acknowledged within three working days and a responded to within 15 working days.

The landlord’s handling of repairs following a water leak from the downpipe of the resident’s property which caused damp and mould and of a fly infestation.

  1. The resident reported a water leak from an external downpipe, which was causing damp to the bathroom wall. When the contractor visited the resident’s property this leak was found to be caused by a blocked drain. It is unclear exactly what date this was reported but the resident moved into the property in June 2020 and landlord’s contractor was attempting to contact the resident about repairs in August 2020, so it appears the repair was first reported around that time. The repair was only finally completed on 21 June 2021, although due to miscommunication with its contractor, the landlord believed that this repair has already been completed when it emailed the resident on 28 May 2021. The landlord had been advised that damp proofing works had been carried out in the bathroom on a previous visit. There was no mention that this repair had been completed on the landlord’s repair log, meaning that the landlord may have incorrectly believed that the repair was completed. This caused the resident to make further contact with the landlord to pursue the repairs to the bathroom wall, which added to his inconvenience. The repair was completed considerably outside the 35-day timescale stated in the landlord’s repair policy and this delay should be regarded as a service failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident also reported an infestation of flies in the bathroom soon after he moved in. It appears from later correspondence about the repairs that the blocked drain was the cause of the fly infestation. The landlord had investigated whether this issue should have been identified while the property was empty and confirmed that a full inspection is not routinely carried out in between residents due to the urgent need for housing meaning that properties are let to new tenants as soon as possible when they become vacant. The landlord has also confirmed that the previous resident did not report any problems with the bathroom or drains. Under these circumstances, the landlord could not reasonably have known of the existence of this problem prior to the resident moving in but would be expected to repair it once the fault was identified, in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
  3. In line with good industry practice, landlords are expected to assume responsibility for eliminating pest infestations if the pests are entering through defects in the structure of the building or if the infestation is affecting multiple properties in the same building.  The landlord should therefore have carried out an inspection to check whether the pests were entering through defects in the structure of the building, prior to telling the resident that the problem was his responsibility.  Had this been done the infestation may have been eliminated earlier and the fault with the drain could also potentially have been discovered and rectified sooner This is because the fly infestation was linked to the issue with the drain and if the landlord had identified the cause of the infestation, it may have led to it identifying the cause of the drainage issue.
  4. The landlord should have treated the original report of a fly infestation with more urgency bearing in mind the potential health hazard and should have considered moving the resident to a hotel sooner in view of the issues he had reported with a  sewage leak in the bathroom. The landlord has admitted service failure by not treating the infestation report as an emergency, especially when the resident made repeated phone calls attempting to get the problem resolved.
  5. The evidence made available to this Service indicates that the bathroom was effectively unusable as a result of the fly infestation. Therefore, the resident would be entitled to a rent reduction to reflect the loss of use of this room for the period when it was in need of repair. The landlord has gone some way towards recognising this by offering a 15% rent rebate for a period of 26 weeks. However, in line with the room loss allowance section of the landlord’s compensation policy, the rent should be reduced by 25% for the loss of use of a room, including the bathroom.
  6. As part of his complaint the resident has said that his health has been affected by the condition of his property and the landlord’s handling of this. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health, but it is outside the role of our service to establish whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inactions and health and wellbeing. If the resident considers that his health has been affected by the landlord’s handling of his repair requests, he may be able to pursue this as a personal injury claim either to the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) or through court. A personal injury claim is a legal process, and the resident may want to seek independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this. The Ombudsman cannot give legal advice and therefore we cannot comment on this aspect of the complaint further. However, consideration has been given in our investigation to the general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as result of the issues affecting his property and the landlord’s response to the resident’s health concerns.
  7. There appears to be a difference of opinion as to what work was carried out in the bathroom. The resident has said that the damp was only painted over but the landlord has said that damp proofing material was applied to the bathroom walls. There is no entry on the repair log for the property confirming what work was carried out, therefore the Ombudsman is unable to establish which version of events is correct. In view of this uncertainty, the landlord should carry out an inspection of the property to confirm what, if any, works remain to be carried out. There is no evidence of the landlord either keeping the resident informed of the progress of repairs or of providing any explanation of delays.
  8. The landlord confirmed on 25 August 2021 that two new windows, a new rear door and frame and new side gate would be provided. It said that repairs to failing stone and brickwork and front brick and mortar that allow water penetration would also take place. If this work has now gone ahead, it would fulfil the landlord’s responsibilities in respect of the repair issues reported by the resident. An appointment for the above works was arranged for 27 August 2020 but it is not clear from the information provided to the Ombudsman, whether this work was successfully completed. In view of this, the landlord should carry out an inspection of the property to identify if there are any unresolved repairs, as detailed further below.

Record keeping

  1. There is a lack of detailed entries for the repair jobs done on 4 and 10 September 2020 and no clear record of when repair issues were reported and if and when jobs were closed on the landlord’s repair logs. For example, there is no entry on the repair log to say that the relocation of the drain was successfully completed but the repair report was closed on 7 October 2020, suggesting that the repair was completed on this date.
  2. There is a noticeable absence of repair records between the date of the first visit to the resident’s property on 4 September 2020 and the date of the email that this Service sent to the landlord on 23 April 2021 and it is not clear what, if any repairs were carried out during this period.
  3. The landlord’s stage two complaint response refers to a CCTV inspection of the drain but the complaint response and repair records do not specify the date for this inspection. Aside from its repair logs, the landlord failed to provide the Ombudsman with any written correspondence dating from the time the repairs took place. It also did not supply details of the resident’s stage one complaint or any evidence that this complaint was acknowledged at the time. The landlord accepted that its repair records were incomplete and confirmed that it was unable to provide the dates when the resident contacted it about the repairs.
  4. The resident notified the landlord of a change of contact number on 3 December 2020, but the landlord’s contractor had to contact the landlord on 15 April 2021 asking it to confirm the resident’s contact number as it was unable to get an answer from the resident on the number it was given. The landlord’s lack of accurate contact records for the resident made it more difficult to arrange repairs, leading to delays and additional inconvenience for the resident. The Ombudsman has considered this when looking at compensation.
  5. There is a discrepancy in the figures which the landlord has given for its compensation offer for time and trouble and the amount of rent reduction, which appears to have resulted in an extra £50 being awarded to the resident.
  6. The landlord awarded £450 for time and trouble and £452.40, being a 15% rent reduction for loss of use of the bathroom from 5 June to 15 December 2020. Based on this, the total compensation should have been £902.40 and it is not clear how the total of £952.40 was arrived at. It would be inappropriate to reduce the compensation due to a calculation error by the landlord and therefore the landlord would be expected to pay the higher amount of £952.40. It appears from the information provided that the landlord’s original compensation offer has already been paid. If the compensation offered by the landlord has not been paid or if the amount paid is less than £952.40, the resident can contact the Ombudsman, and we will explain the next steps regarding this matter.
  7. The landlord’s record keeping in relation to this case is generally poor, and the repair records are both difficult to understand and lack essential details such as descriptions of work carried out and date on which issues were reported and repairs carried out. This would have made it difficult for the resident to be given accurate updates of the progress of repairs. It has made it more difficult for the Ombudsman to establish what happened and the extent of any delays, although overall we can conclude that there were unreasonable delays as explained above. It is therefore recommended that the landlord carries out a review of its record keeping in respect of repairs, as detailed further below.

Complaint Handling

  1. There is no record of the date the stage one complaint was submitted therefore it is not possible to say whether the landlord issued its response within it published timescales. The stage two complaint was acknowledged in two working days which is within the timescales listed in the landlord’s complaints policy but the resident was promised a reply within 20 working days, which was one week outside its published timescales of 15 working days. no reason was provided for this delay although the response was provided on the promised date, meaning that the resident was not significantly inconvenienced by this delay.
  2. The landlord has admitted that it did not respond to the complaint initially with a sufficient degree of urgency and that several calls from the resident were not actioned. This poor communication would have added to the resident’s inconvenience as it meant he had to call the landlord several times to get an update.
  3. The landlord’s complaint responses did not fully address the complaint points the resident had raised and he had to go back to the landlord several times to ask it to respond to his concerns about damp and mould in the bathroom. Some of the resident’s questions remained unanswered questions following the landlord’s final response. It appears this was partly because there is a difference of opinion concerning the extent of the work carried out to the bathroom and the landlord’s repair records are not clear enough to support its position on this.
  4. The landlord’s stage one complaint response did not explain how it had calculated its offer of compensation. Although this was partially addressed in the stage two response where a breakdown of the compensation was given, the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the lack of clarity in its stage one response.
  5. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has made some efforts to resolve the complaint by offering compensation. However, the landlord’s compensation policy is not in line with this Service’s approach to remedies as it does not make any provision for compensation for distress and inconvenience experienced by its residents as a result of any failings by the landlord. It is therefore recommended that the landlord reviews its policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s established approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience and good industry practice.
  6. As the landlord’s offer of compensation did not include an award for distress and inconvenience, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to make a payment of £200 to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays and miscommunication concerning the repairs at his property. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests that we may make awards between £250 and £750 in cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs, and/or a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant.
  7. This award takes into consideration the compensation of £450 already paid by the landlord through its complaints procedure for time and trouble, meaning that the total compensation for distress and inconvenience and time and trouble is £650. This is separate from the payment due for loss of use of a room, as explained above. The Ombudsman considers that further compensation is appropriate in this case as there was considerable additional distress and inconvenience to the resident aside from his being unable to properly use the bathroom.
  8. The Ombudsman also considers that the landlord should pay £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to errors in its complaint handling as set out above, which were not addressed fully in its final response to the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there   was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following a water leak at the resident’s property which caused damp and mould and of fly infestation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there   was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The first request to repair the water leak was raised on 14 April 2021 and should have been completed within 35 days, in line with the landlord’s repair policy. However, the work was not carried out and another job was approved on 25 August 2021 to repair the brickwork that was allowing water to enter the property and cause damp.
  2. The landlord’s repair records are difficult to understand and do not provide a clear record of when a repair was requested, when the work was done and if it was successful. In addition, there is no evidence that the resident was kept informed of progress. The resident was incorrectly advised that it was his responsibility to get the fly infestation eradicated without first making an inspection to confirm whether the pests were entering through defects in the structure of the building.
  3. The landlord has accepted that it did not treat the resident’s complaint with a sufficient degree of urgency and that it did not call the resident back on several occasions. It is not clear from the information provided when the complaint was first raised to the landlord, so it is not clear whether there were delays at stage one of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The stage two response was slightly delayed but the landlord kept the resident informed regarding the delay.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to carry out an inspection of the property to confirm if any more repairs need to be carried out. If outstanding repairs are required, the landlord should draw up a schedule of works to be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman. Any repairs identified in the schedule of work should then be completed within the timescales stated in the landlord’s repair policy.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the additional compensation listed below to be paid.
  3. An additional £302.19 rent rebate, this being the difference between a 15% and a 25% rent reduction for a period of 26 weeks.
  4. £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in completing repairs.
  5. £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by errors and delays in its complaint handling.
  6. If the original compensation of £952.40 has not been paid this sum should be added to the compensation listed above, to be paid within four weeks.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping procedures in respect of repair records to ensure that the date repairs are reported and carried out are clearly shown as well as the work carried out in each visit.
  2. The landlord should review its compensation policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience, as set out in our service’s remedies guidance.