Peabody Trust (202102403)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102403

Peabody Trust

15 December 2023

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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to secure its own access to the communal plant room.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat, in a block. The resident’s tenancy started in August 2019.
The block of flats is serviced by a communal heating and sewerage system, which is located in the basement of the block. Access to the plant room, where the maintenance for the systems takes place, is through a commercial bank that holds the lease to the lower floors of the block. At the time the resident made her complaint, the landlord did not have its own point of access to the plant room and was reliant on the bank’s staff giving it access. When the bank was closed, the landlord had an out of hours contact to use, when it needed emergency access.

Summary of events

On 4 April 2021, which was a Sunday during the Easter bank holiday weekend, the resident reported a total loss of running water in her flat. An internal email for the landlord on the same day stated that:
1. The whole block was without water that day
2. It was unable to get hold of the emergency contact for the bank to gain access to the plant room
3. The flats in the block were supplied with bottled water
4. The situation was of “major concern” as it was unsure if the sewerage pumps were working.
It is unclear from the records provided when the water supply was reinstated at the block.
The resident contacted this Service on 27 May 2021 and asked for assistance in raising a complaint with the landlord. The resident stated that the issue was happening “frequently” leaving her without heating or hot water. This Service wrote to the landlord on the same day and asked it to open a complaint investigation, and respond within 10 working days.
The landlord emailed the resident on 15 July 2021 to acknowledge her stage 1 complaint, and apologised it had taken “so long” to get in touch about the complaint. It said it would issue its complaint response within 10 working days. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 20 July 2021 and said:
1. It apologised that the situation had “caused problems” for the resident
2. It was looking into the issue of access to the plant room, but the bank had been “reluctant” to allow it to have its own access
3. It was working with the bank to come up with a solution that would satisfy its insurers and senior leadership
4. There was a recent issue where it could not get access, as the emergency contact for the bank was not answering their phone
5. It had an “emergency contact” system set up with the bank, which had “worked on occasions”. But, it had been unable to get through to the contact when there was an issue, on the recent bank holiday weekend
6. It had asked the police to help it force entry to the plant room, but the police had been unwilling to force entry, due to the building being a bank
7. The resident could have her complaint considered at the next stage if she was unhappy with its response.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 July 2021, and asked her complaint to be considered at stage 2. The resident said the situation had “gone on too long” and she could not be left without running water and flushing toilets if the system went down outside of the banks opening hours again. The landlord responded on the 27 July 2021 and said it would consider the resident’s complaint at the next stage if she “wanted” it to. It added that it looking to find a solution to the situation as soon as possible.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 August 2021 and said it had instructed a contractor to look into the issue and come up with a solution. An internal email for the landlord, on the same day, stated that its contractor had been instructed to find a solution that granted it “unfettered access” to the plant room that satisfied the banks insurers and regulator.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 and 23 September 2021 to ask for a progress update about it gaining access to the plant room. The landlord responded on 4 October 2022 and said that it had a quote for prospective works, that it was putting to the bank for agreement. It added that it was doing additional checks, and cleaning, of the system to minimise any outages. The landlord provided a further update on 19 October 2021 and said it was working with the bank to secure its agreement and hoped to start works within 6 weeks.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 December 2021 and said the worry about the issue was causing her “severe anxiety” and wanted to know the arrangement for the bank holiday over the Christmas period. The landlord responded on the same day and said that it had arranged emergency cover for the bank holiday period, so there should be no access issues, if the system went down. The landlord provided a further update on 21 December 2021 and said it had a further proposal to put to the bank, and it hoped to get the works completed by “Easter next year”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 February 2022 and said it had been a month since its last update and asked for one. The landlord sent a response on 23 February 2022 and said it had not yet finalised the plans with the bank, as there was a “discrepancy on materials” that needed to be agreed.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 April 2022 and said that it had emergency cover in place over the Easter bank holiday weekend. It said it would check all of the systems the day before to minimise the risk of them going offline over the weekend.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 May 2022 and said that she was “fed up” of getting “generic responses” and asked it to consider her complaint at stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint, on 25 May 2022, and said it would respond within 20 working days. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 20 June 2022 and said:
1. The bank had initially refused its proposals for access in 2021. Due to the complex nature of the works, it was not able to use its normal contractor and had to commission a specialist.
2. It had regularly discussed its proposals with the bank, but it was complicated by the fact that the bank’s: branch manager, managing director, and insurance company had to agree to any proposal. It had run into difficulties where the bank had cancelled meetings at short notice or sent representative to meetings who were not able to make such high level decisions
3. The bank had been cooperating, but there was a “possibility” its most recent proposals would be rejected by the bank
4. It was “disappointing” how long the issue was taking to resolve, but it was of the view it had done “everything possible” to resolve it. The bank needed to agree to any proposals, which it had no control over
5. It had put measures in place so it could access the plant room when the bank was closed. If there were issues outride of normal hours it may take it “slightly longer” to gain access. “Fortunately” there had not been a situation where it had to use the emergency measure, as there had not been an incident since the resident reported the concern in April 2021
6. At the resident’s request, it had put a marker on her file to explain to its call centre that there may be access issues if the heating and hot water system went down out of hours
7. It apologised that it had not been proactive in updating the resident, and said it would now provide updates every 3 months until the matter was resolved. It offered £150 in compensation for its poor communication
8. It apologised for the length of time the issue had been outstanding, but the length of delay was outside of its control.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 August 2022 and asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She said this was because the issue had not been resolved, and she felt “ignored” by the landlord.
This Service asked the landlord provide an update on the access to the communal plant room on 24 November 2023. The landlord confirmed on 15 December 2023, that it was still working with the bank to secure its own access to the plant room.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement mirrors the landlord’s obligations set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that for time and trouble it can award can up to £300 for “moderate disruption”, and for “extensive disruption” it can award up to £400. The policy gives separate amounts for complaint handling compensation. Which are: up to £75 for a “moderate failure” to follow the complaint procedure, and up to £100 for an “extensive failure” to follow the complaint procedure.
The compensation policy states that for total loss of heating and hot water it should offer £3 per day after first 24 hours for heating and £1 per day for hot water per person. For total loss of mains water it should offer £5 per day.
The landlord’s complaint procedure, at the time of the resident’s complaint, stated that it operates a 2 stage procedure. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 3 working days and a response will be sent within 10 working days, stage 2 complaints will also be acknowledged within 3 working days and a response sent within 20 working days.

Access to the plant room

When the resident reported a total loss of water at the property, during the bank holiday weekend in April 2021, the landlord treated the situation as an emergency and attended out of regular working hours. Given the seriousness of the matter, this was appropriate in the circumstances. The evidence indicates that the landlord was unable to gain access, and it failed to record when the water was reinstated. This was a failing in its record keeping in relation to this matter.
This Service has also seen no evidence that, in the immediate period after the incident in April 2021, the landlord sought to reassure the resident about what it would do to stop the incident happening again. The Ombudsman notes that, after the resident had raised a complaint, the landlord did seek to reassure her about the measures it had put in place. However, that it was not proactive was unreasonable and failed to consider the impact, and anxiety, the incident had caused.
Internal emails, in July 2021, show that the landlord was taking the matter seriously and was working on plans to gain its own access to the plant room. It also evidenced learning from the outcome of the incident in April 2021, as it sought a more reliable out of hours contact for the bank. This was appropriate and evidence the landlord tried to reduce the risk of a similar incident happening again. However, as outlined above, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been more proactive in progressing with its plans, and communicating them to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, though delayed, was detailed in how it communicated its plans to the resident, which was appropriate. It also sought to manage the resident’s expectations that its plans for access needed to be agreed by the bank, and would result in the process likely taking some time. This was reasonable in the circumstances as it was clear in its plans, showed learning and what it had done to mitigate against the situation occurring again. It also sought to manage the resident’s expectations about the time it would likely take to come up with a permanent solution. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was transparent, detailed and sought to give all relevant information to the resident, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response admitted that the resident had suffered a detriment and appropriately apologised. However, it did not offer any redress, at stage 1, for its admitted failings. This was inappropriate and not in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of putting things right, and was a failing in the landlord’s handling of matter.
The landlord accepted that it was not proactive in its communication about the matter with the resident. The evidence supports this. It is noted however that, when the landlord did provide updates, they were detailed and transparent. The landlord was often apologetic that it had not made progress and explained it was working towards a solution, which was appropriate. However, the resident would often need to email the landlord to ask for an update before it would provide one. This was inconvenient for the resident and cost her time and trouble in needing to chase for updates. That the landlord was not proactive in providing regular updates was unreasonable. It is noted that the landlord sought to learn from this in its stage 2 complaint response, and gave a formal timeframe, of 3 months, when it would provide updates. This was appropriate in the circumstances .
The matter was evidently complicated by the fact that the company occupying the commercial area of the building was a bank. The need to satisfy the security requirements of the bank made the matter more complicated, than if a different type of organisation leased the space. The evidence available indicates that the landlord was proactive in trying to progress the matter with the bank, and was taking the situation seriously. However, the evidence available for this investigation suggests the landlord’s communication with the bank failed to express the level of urgency needed.
The landlord put contingency plans in place by making the out of hours situation more reliable, which was appropriate and showed learning. The landlord also did additional checks and cleaning ahead of bank holidays, in an attempt to reduce the risk of an incident happening again. This was reasonable in the circumstance and further evidence it was taking the matter seriously.
Ahead of bank holiday weekends, the landlord provided the resident updates about the plans it had put in place to reduce the risk. This is evidence that it considered the individual circumstances of the resident. The resident had explained that the matter was causing her “severe anxiety”, and the landlord sought to reduce her anxiety by explaining what it had done to reduce risk. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was also detailed, outlined its current position and sought to manage the resident’s expectations. It gave a good explanation about the complexity of the issue and the difficulty it was having in reach a resolution. This is further evidence that the landlord was transparent and sought to ensure the resident was clear on the current position.
Unlike its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident compensation for an admitted failing in its handling of the matter. The landlord offered the resident £150 for its poor communication about the issue. It is evident that the matter was ongoing for an extended period of time. The resident suffered an inconvenience on multiple occasions when she had to chase it for an update. The poor communication was ongoing for a significant period. There was also a delay in issuing its stage 2 response, which in turn delayed it putting in a formal update arrangement. Therefore the £150 it offered for its poor communication did not fully put things right for the resident.
It is accepted that the delay in reaching a permanent access arrangement is somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. However, that the landlord did not offer compensation for the evident distress the resident experienced was inappropriate. While the landlord’s complaint responses were detailed and transparent, they lacked any assessment of the distress the resident had described experiencing. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer some redress for this, while acknowledging that the delay was somewhat out of its control.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord offered the resident any redress for the incident in April 2021, when she experienced a total loss of water. This was a failure to apply its compensation policy, to offer redress for the loss of amenity, and a further failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was inconvenienced by this and a relevant order has been made below.
The landlord did show learning about its handling of the matter and the evidence available indicates it was working hard to find a long term solution to the problem. The Ombudsman appreciates that the length of time to find a long term solution has been distressing for the resident, but the evidence indicates that the landlord has been proactive in seeking a solution. The complex nature of the matter means that the somewhat out of its control, but it did not proactively communicate with the resident, or provide appropriate updates. The lack of urgency to progress negotiations with the bank, and that the matter is still outstanding, is also of concern. The landlord’s failings in its handling of the matter amount to maladministration.

Complaint handling

This Service contacted the landlord in May 2021, and asked it to open a stage 1 complaint investigation into the resident’s concerns. There was an unreasonable delay in acknowledging the complaint of nearly 2 months. This was inappropriate, and well outside of the timeframe’s set out in the landlord’s complaints procedure, and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling Code (the Code).This complaint handling failing, contributed to its overall poor handling of the substantive issue, as the resident experienced an unreasonable delay in the landlord outlining its overall position. It is noted that the landlord did provide detailed updates after it had opened its complaint investigation, but the evidence shows it did not do so before then. This was unreasonable and contributed to the detriment experienced by the resident.
After the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response, the resident responded the same day and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. That the landlord did not progress the complaint to stage 2, at that time, was unreasonable, and a further failing in its complaint handing. The landlord opened its stage 2 complaint investigation 9 months after the resident asked it to, this was a significant delay and well outside of the timeframe set out in its procedure. The result was a further delay in what had already been a protracted and unfair complaints process for the resident.
Neither the landlord’s stage 1 or 2 complaint responses acknowledged or apologised for the delays at both stages of the process, which was unreasonable. There were significant delays at both stages of the complaints process. That the landlord did not offer redress for the delays was a further failing in its complaint handling, as it did not apply its compensation policy. The policy states it should offer compensation for delays in its complaint handling, that it did not do so in this case was unreasonable and inconvenienced the resident.
The landlord’s complaint handling failings contributed to its overall handling of the substantive issue in this case. The delay in opening a stage 1 complaint investigation resulted in the resident experiencing a delay in getting an update about the landlord’s position. The delays at stage 2 resulted in a delay in the resident being offered redress, as would have been appropriate before. The delay at stage 2 also resulted in a delay in the landlord putting in a formal update timeframe. This prolonged the time the resident experienced sporadic updates. That the landlord did not address its complaint handling failings in its responses was inappropriate. As such, a series of orders have been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to secure its own access to the communal plant room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The matter was evidently complex and difficult to resolve. The landlord was proactive in trying to resolve the matter, after the resident had raised a complaint. Its initial response lacked urgency. It admitted that its communication was poor, which it apologised for. However, the compensation it offered did not address all of its failings and did not fully put things right for the resident. The landlord showed learning and sought not to make similar mistakes again, which was appropriate.
The landlord’s complaint handling failings contributed to its overall handling of the substantive issue in this case. That the landlord did not address its complaint handling failings in its responses was inappropriate. In line with its complaints policy, an offer of redress for the delays in its complaint responses would have been reasonable.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report
2. Pay the resident £700 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £150 it offered for its handling of the plant room issue (if it has not already done so)
  2. A further £200 in recognition of the inconvenience and distress caused by its handling of the plant room issue
  3. £350 in recognition of the inconvenience and distress caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint
3. Review any incidents of when the resident has suffered a total loss of water and/or heating. If it has not offered compensation for any incidents identified, it must do so, in line with its compensation policy.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to conduct training with its complaint handling staff, with a particular focus on:
1. The complaint handling timeframes set out in its own procedure and the Code.
2. Offering redress when a complaint investigation identifies failings
3. The importance of acknowledging and offering redress when there are delays in responding to complaints.