Peabody Trust (202102170)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102170

Peabody Trust

16 December 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 level of compensation offered by the landlord following acknowledged service failures in relation to roof repairs at the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a tap repair has also been investigated.

Background and summary of events

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property (‘the property’). The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s responsibility to repair and maintain the structure and exterior of the property, reflecting its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
4. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for payments up to £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience and up to £100 for extensive complaint handling failures. The amount payable under this policy for each missed appointment depends upon the contract in place with the individual contractor. The policy also provides for calculating compensation as a percentage of rent for each unusable room whilst repair issues are resolved – where only partial loss of a room is experienced, the percentage will be reduced to reflect this. For a kitchen or bathroom, the figure is 25% of weekly rent, for a bedroom it is 20% and a living room it is 10%.
5. The resident has previously submitted complaints to the Ombudsman for consideration. This included a complaint relating to roof leaks which was determined on 9 October 2018, identifying maladministration and ordering the landlord to pay compensation and inspect the roof/chimney, then raise orders for any identified works. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not re-investigate issues that have already been formally investigated; as such, any issues that were investigated as part of this previous investigation have been referenced here for contextual purposes only. This investigation will however consider the landlord’s response to developments with the roof at the property since this previous investigation.

Summary of events

6. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 November 2019. He said that a further leak had occurred the day before, said that no testing had been completed since the landlord’s previous agreement to do so and that an issue with a ‘cowl’ was identified by a previous contractor, with the landlord not acting upon this. He said the leak was intermittent and infrequent, seemingly occurring during certain weather conditions. He also raised an issue with a bathroom tap repair, which had involved a missed appointment and referred to issues with a scheduled gas safety check.
7. The landlord raised a new stage two complaint on 29 November 2019, confirming that this would include compensation payment for the missed bathroom tap appointment that the resident had raised as part of his complaint.
8. The landlord sent its ‘interim review’ formal response on 9 January 2020. It confirmed that it had completed flaunching works to the chimney on 28 October 2019, but that works to the chimney pots had not proceeded as scheduled as its contractor had identified that scaffolding would be required. It confirmed these works remained outstanding and that it would also need to do testing to the chimney breast and flaunching. Once completed, it confirmed that it would also address internal repairs.
9. The landlord also confirmed that it had added the resident’s complaint about a tap repair to the complaint, as explained in its email to him of 24 December 2019. It confirmed that it had procured new contracts for contracted works and this had come with a reduction in the amount it paid per missed appointment, hence the offer of £10 for the missed appointment he had raised with it, rather than the £25 he had requested.
10. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had been inconvenienced since the works progressed, with some delays caused by restrictions placed upon contractors (in this respect the landlord also confirmed that contractors would only attend for appointments after 1pm, as requested by the resident). It identified the need for a ‘more streamlined repairs service’ and apologised for the inconvenience the resident had experienced.
11. On January 30/31 2020, the resident and the landlord shared email correspondence regarding the landlord’s plans to resolve the water ingress issues. The landlord confirmed that it was attempting to arrange appointments around the resident’s requests for no morning appointments and responded to his reports that a cherry picker might be required. Works then took place on 26/27 February to replace chimney pots, during which the ‘abseil’ method planned to access the roof area had not proven possible, with ladders used instead. The contractors also identified issues with the flaunching work that had previously been completed.
12. On 14 March 2020, the resident reported that the roof was still leaking, with the flaunching and testing previously identified still outstanding. The landlord and resident continued email correspondence during the following months, with the landlord confirming that it would not undertake testing until the flaunching work was complete. The landlord explained that two full days work would be needed for this work, however the resident was unwilling to allow this and the works were instead arranged for four half days, over 1 to 4 June 2020. In advance of the works, the resident requested the work plans on more than one occasion and raised concerns that the landlord was ‘forcing an appointment’ on him. The works proceeded on 1 to 4 June as planned however, with the landlord confirming that works would resolve the flaunching and include water testing.
13. The landlord’s email correspondence with its contractor confirmed that works were completed to the flaunching, including the testing, on 4 June 2020. On 25 June, the landlord’s complaints team requested that the property be inspected for any internal issues, now that the external issues had been resolved. This inspection was scheduled for 4 August.
14. The resident reported a new leak from the rear chimney on 17 August 2020. The landlord responded the following day to say that it would look at this new issue as a priority; following which, on 9 September, the resident reported concerns that the landlord had arranged scaffolding that day without forewarning him. The landlord apologised for any communication failure here. On 17 September, it confirmed to the resident that no defect had been identified during its inspection; to which the resident replied that he had not been aware of this inspection.
15. On 5 November 2020, the resident reported that a further unnotified appointment had taken place, with the landlord’s roofing contractors turning up unannounced.
16. Between 25 November and 1 December 2020, the resident and landlord shared emails about the scaffolder’s attempts to remove the scaffolding from outside the property. The resident was dissatisfied that the contractors had attended without notice on a Sunday, then arrived early when this was re-scheduled for 1 December. On 2 December, the landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident, offering him a £25 voucher and an apology for its sub-contractor having attended unannounced on a weekend, with further disruption when it re-attended at an unscheduled time.
17. The resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord on 2 December 2020. He listed multiple areas of dissatisfaction, which he considered to be separate complaints:

a)     The scaffolders had attended unannounced.

b)     They had turned up on a Sunday.

c)     They came in the morning on a Sunday.

d)     They said they would investigate, but no such investigation took place.

e)     They had ‘threatened’ to leave the scaffolding until after Christmas if they were not permitted to remove it immediately.

f)       They arranged a time to return, but then returned before that agreed time.

g)     They returned in the morning, despite knowing that the resident did not allow this for health reasons.

h)     They refused to leave the property, which was ‘illegal’.

i)        They ‘threatened’ to leave the scaffolding indefinitely.

j)        The landlord had been informed and took no action.

k)     They had already attended twice before without notice when erecting the scaffolding.

l)        He had requested support from the landlord as he had recommended that the scaffolding stay erected at his property, despite the required works being for an adjacent property.

18. The landlord sent its final response on 10 December 2020, in which it said that:

a)     Its contractor had attended on 6 February 2020 but had been unable to complete works as scaffolding was required. The contractor had initially believed that a ‘rope access’ method would be needed to complete works, however, when it attended on 26/27 February it had instead carried out the works using ladders. The contractor had also identified issues with the flaunching whilst completing works.

b)     The landlord had written to the resident on 1 April 2020 to confirm that testing could not take place until the flaunching issue had been addressed, which was originally scheduled for 21/22 April, but postponed as the landlord failed to inform the contractor of the time restrictions on works. The works (including testing) were re-scheduled for 1-4 June, which went ahead successfully despite the resident requesting a schedule of works.

c)     The landlord had inspected the property for internal repairs on 4 August 2020, following which works were raised to the bedroom ceiling.

d)     On 17 August 2020, a further report of minor water ingress had been reported by the resident. Scaffolding was erected and an inspection took place on 9 September, during which no defect was identified. The landlord said that the resident confirmed, on this same date, that he did not wish the planned bedroom ceiling works to take place.

e)     The resident had contacted the landlord on 22 November 2020 as scaffolding was being removed that day with no advance notice, for which the landlord apologised. He had requested that this take place after 2pm on 1 December and had then complained when the sub-contractor arrived on the morning of 1 December to complete the removal. Upon discussing this with the contractor, the landlord identified that its sub-contractor had been in the area and decided to do the removal to save time. The landlord apologised for this and said that the contractor had offered £25 for the inconvenience, which was not accepted by the resident as he understood the landlord to be fully responsible.

19. The landlord acknowledged an overall lack of communication regarding the progress of repairs. It also acknowledged that additional roof leaks should not have occurred following the previous roof replacement works and that its efforts to resolve this had become protracted. It accepted that some elements of the works could have been completed more effectively, though it also pointed out the time restrictions that had been placed on it and the ongoing pandemic had impacted on its repairs service delivery. As a remedy for the inconvenience and delays experienced, the landlord offered compensation of £2,330.56 – 10% of rent for a 113–week period between 1 October 2018 and 6 December 2020 (£1,595.56), plus £10 for a missed appointment (in relation to the tap repair), the £25 offered by its contractor, £100 for poor complaints handling, £100 for the lack of communication and £500 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
20. The resident reported further water ingress to the property on 14 January 2021. The landlord’s internal correspondence from this same date confirmed that it was considering instructing a new surveyor to inspect. On 16 January, the resident emailed the landlord, stating that the complaint had proceeded on the basis that the water ingress issues had been resolved. Given the latest incident, he asked the landlord to confirm whether these new issues would be included within the complaint, or as a separate matter.
21. On 28 January 2021, the landlord emailed the resident, confirming that it would instruct a specialist leak company to investigate and that this would not require scaffolding. It asked the resident to confirm a suitable date for an appointment so that it could arrange an appointment with the specialist and the landlord in attendance. The resident initially offered a date at the beginning of February, but then had to change these plans for personal reasons.
22. The resident emailed the landlord ion 14 April 2021. He said that he had been contacted the day before regarding testing and erecting scaffolding. He had considered this following the call and decided that he would not be able to proceed with this appointment, but had been unable to get back in contact, though he left a message. He had then woken up to find scaffolders on his roof. He confirmed that he would not be available for a further appointment the following day.
23. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord confirmed that its contractor would be attending on 28 April 2021. Upon attendance, the contractor had not been able to identify anything obvious, that it would be re-attending the week after to cut out a section of the bedroom ceiling and conduct a water test
24. The resident had a call with this Service on 22 June 2021, during which the resident confirmed that, in his view, the complaint related to the bathroom tap issue as well as the roof. At this stage, it was not clear that the Ombudsman was aware that the bathroom tap issue had progressed through the complaints process and the resident proceeded to ask the landlord to raise the bathroom tap issue as a separate complaint following the call. It is not clear whether this further complaint was raised by the landlord.
25. During the call on 22 June 2021, the resident said that the roof continued to leak and that repairs were ongoing. He said that his complaint related to the amount of compensation offered by the landlord and its general handling of the case. He said that he wanted additional compensation, which he would outline at a later date. It is reasonable to conclude, from the resident’s reports, that the landlord continued to undertake repairs at the property until on or around mid July 2021, when he reported that contractors had again attended unannounced to remove scaffolding.
26. On 26 August 2021, the resident provided the Ombudsman with his desired outcome from the complaint. He said that he had excluded the complaint about the tap repair from his calculation of desired compensation as he had not received a response on this issue. Regarding the water ingress issues at the property, the resident made clear that, in his view, any calculation of compensation should commence from the date that he first reported this to the landlord, on 11 January 2016, rather than the date in October 2018 that had been used by the landlord. The resident calculated what he considered to be a fair amount of compensation to be £4,992.40, broken down as follows:

a)     £3,852.24 – 10% of weekly rent between 11 January 2016 to 6 December 2020.

b)     £665 – the amount offered by the landlord, minus the amounts it had included from its contractor and the tap repair.

c)     £200 – scaffolders issue – 4 instances of service failure at £25 each time (two for arriving in the morning and on a Sunday, plus their returning that same morning in breach of a rearranged appointment) – plus £100 for ‘trespass’.

d)     £150 for staff behaviour in relation to the appointment – arranging an appointment without consent, failing to organise this appointment properly and refusal to discuss the details of the work – the resident considered this to amount to ‘abusive’ behaviour.

e)     £100 – Whilst the landlord’s offer of compensation had included an amount for trouble and inconvenience, it had not referred to the ‘harm’ its actions it had caused – for this, the resident felt £100 reflected this harm as a ‘symbolic claim’.

27. Internal landlord email correspondence from 1 to 4 October 2021 confirmed that it had experienced difficulty in conducting further actions at the property in relation to the further water ingress issues. It said that it had a plan of action but had been unable to execute these plans, with the resident having cancelled appointments due to ill health.
28. Further landlord email correspondence, dated 25 October 2021 confirmed that it had attempted to contact the resident that day in relation to arranging a date for the surveyor and contractor to attend. The resident had responded on the same date to say that he had been sending emails to the resident’s ‘enquiries’ address, but had not received a response, and that his most recent email had confirmed the present situation. The landlord confirmed that it had no record of this email.
29. The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 5 November 2021 to confirm his view that the bathroom tap repair should be dealt with separately. He said that he had followed Ombudsman advice on this issue and made contact with the landlord registering his intention to pursue a new complaint, but had received no response. He expanded on this point later on (8 November), confirming that he objected to the landlord combining the tap complaint with the roof complaint.

Assessment and findings

Bathroom tap

30. The resident has confirmed his reluctance that this complaint be included within this investigation. It is noted that Ombudsman contact at the earlier stage of this Service’s dispute resolution process contributed to a lack of clarity here as it was identified that this complaint had yet to proceed through the landlord’s complaints process. However, upon reviewing the case file, it is clear that the resident’s original complaint referred to this issue, the landlord’s subsequent acknowledgement confirmed that the issue had been included within the complaint it had raised and it then responded to the issue in its interim (stage one) response. This decision was then confirmed in the final response sent in December 2020. It is therefore evident that this aspect of the complaint falls within the remit of this investigation as it has progressed through the landlord complaint process under investigation.
31. The landlord confirmed, in both the stage one and final responses, that it was within its compensation policy to award compensation for missed contractor appointments according to the Service Level Agreement (SLA) in place with that particular contractor. The resident was dissatisfied that the compensation awarded for this particular issue was significantly lower than monies he had received for similar service failures on previous occasions (£10 compared to £25 per missed appointment). However, whilst the sum was at the lower end of what the Ombudsman would typically see awarded in such instances, it remains within the range of awards typically paid across the sector. As such, the landlord is considered to have offered compensation that is reasonable and proportionate to the acknowledged service failure.

Water ingress from the roof area

32. The landlord acknowledged, at the final stage of its complaint process, that water ingress issues ought not to have arisen following its previous roof replacement works. It also acknowledged that its standard of communication had not been up to standard regarding how repairs were progressing and that its overall attempts to resolve these issues had become protracted. It was both reasonable and appropriate that the landlord’s complaint investigation identified these service failures and sought to award an amount of compensation that it believed reflected these failures.
33. It is clear that previous works, from October 2019, did not fully resolve the roof related issues at the property, and that there was outstanding testing to be done from that point, which had not occurred by the time the resident’s new complaint was submitted. Over the course of February to June 2020, the landlord took action to arrange for further works to the chimney pots, to carry out further remedial works to the flaunching as it identified that this had not been successful in October 2019 and to complete the testing required. Whilst the time between the resident’s reports in November 2019 and the completion of works and testing in June 2020 presents as a significant period of delay, it is noted that the resident was unwilling to allow access for morning appointments. Whilst this was clearly an adjustment that the landlord had accepted, it remains that such a restriction will often impact upon timescales for works.
34. There was a further report of water ingress in August 2020. The landlord responded promptly by erecting scaffolding and arranging an inspection, which identified no defect at that time. It is not disputed that, following this inspection, in September 2020, the resident confirmed that he was not willing for the landlord to complete internal works to address the impact of the previous water ingress issues.
35. The resident registered significant dissatisfaction in relation to the chain of events that led to the contractor removing the scaffolding. He referred to the failure to advise about the removal of the scaffolding, the fact that this had occurred on a Sunday and during the morning (against the landlord’s agreement to only arrange appointments for the afternoon), the landlord’s failure to investigate this issue and the fact that contractors had returned a second time at an unacceptable time of the day.
36. The resident’s concerns with the failures here were understandable. Given the landlord’s agreement to arrange appointments at acceptable times, it was clearly very distressing to have contractors arrive unannounced at such a time on a Sunday. For this issue to have effectively occurred a second time, when the same contractors re-attended outside of the agreed appointment time presents as poor service delivery, something the landlord acknowledged. It was appropriate that it apologised for these failures and that its overall offer of compensation included reference to this issue.
37. The resident’s further reports of water ingress (January 2021 onwards) are outside the remit of this investigation as they post date the complaints process under investigation. It is nonetheless of concern that water ingress issues continue, despite previous roof replacement works and multiple attempts to complete remedial works. Of further concern are the more recent reports of a difficulty in accessing the property and to keep in contact with the resident to arrange further progress on this issue. Whilst no findings have been made in respect of the ongoing issues, it is recommended that both parties agree on an appropriate communication method that will ensure that the issue can be progressed – whether through phone/email/letter or a combination of these facilities. Both landlords and residents are required to play their respective parts in ensuring that a property remains in a reasonable standard of repair and maintenance and this will involve working together to ensure that the needs of the property are met.

Compensation

38. The resident has confirmed, in his correspondence with the Ombudsman dated 26 August 2021, the figure that he believes appropriate for the detriment he has experienced. This included a proportion of his rent from the date he first reported the issue (11 January 2016). The Ombudsman does not dispute that this was the point that the issue was first reported, however, and given that a previous Ombudsman investigation took place in relation to the landlord’s previous response to water ingress issues, it is considered both reasonable and appropriate that the landlord commenced its calculation of compensation from the point that this previous investigation took place (October 2018) up until its final response in December 2020.
39. Furthermore, the 10% rent proportion calculated by the landlord for this period is also considered appropriate. The evidence suggests that a bedroom was affected by the water ingress issues (subject to 20% compensation in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy) and the resident has accepted that the water ingress issues were both intermittent and infrequent. As such, reducing the 20% figure to 10% was reasonable as this reflected the impact on the resident. On this point it is also noted that the resident was satisfied for the landlord to not proceed with internal re-decoration works to the affected area, suggesting the impact was not significant.
40. Regarding the remainder of the compensation, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord offered reasonable and proportionate redress for the detriment experienced. The landlord re-offered the £25 that its contractor had originally offered for the scaffolder issues, it also offered £100 for complaint handling issues, which was reasonable given the delay in progressing the case through the complaints process, and more than the maximum payable under its compensation policy for time, trouble and inconvenience (£500). In addition, the landlord offered the £10 it had previously offered in relation to the missed appointment for the bathroom tap repair.
41. The resident’s calculation of compensation included specific sums, including each element of failure in relation to the scaffolding contractors failures, these can reasonably be attributed to the landlord’s offer for time, trouble and inconvenience. It is also noted that the resident calculated additional amounts for ‘trespass’ and ‘harm’; these are issues more appropriately dealt with by a court of law and have not been considered further here.

Determination (decision)

42. In accordance with paragraph 55 b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for acknowledged service failures in relation to roof repairs at the property.
43. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a bathroom tap repair.

Reasons

44. The landlord acknowledged that its attempts to resolve the roof issues had become protracted, with multiple communication failures and significant concerns with the actions of its scaffolding contractor. Its offer of compensation reflected the service failures however.
45. The landlord’s compensation policy confirms that it will pay compensation for missed appointments in accordance with the SLA in place with the relevant contractor. In this case, it paid £10 in recognition of the missed appointment to repair the bathroom tap, which was in line with its own policy.

Recommendations

46. The landlord to pay the resident the compensation detailed in its final response, if it has not done so already.
47. The landlord and resident to agree on an appropriate method of communication for future contact, in order that ongoing issues to the roof area can be addressed within a reasonable timescale.