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

Peabody Trust (202106695)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106695

Peabody Trust

21 September 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint concerning a heating inspection at his home.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord.
  2. An engineer (of the landlord’s contractors) carried out an inspection of the resident’s heating system on 10 December 2020.
  3. On 28 December 2020 the resident asked the landlord for the inspection report. He said his wife granted access to the engineer. He said he did not think the engineer had carried out a full inspection, as they did not check the flow rates in the bathroom or kitchen and left after five minutes.
  4. The landlord provided the report on 15 January 2021. The following day the resident told the landlord that the engineer had provided a hot water temperature reading from the kitchen tap, even though they did not enter the kitchen. He said the contractors needed to reattend as the report had been falsified.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 February 2021. He said the contractors had contacted him to arrange another inspection and advised the landlord would be charged for it. He asked why the landlord had agreed for them to reattend, and whether the cost would be charged back to him through his service charge. He said he expected to be compensated for the follow up appointment the same way he would be for a missed appointment. He asked whether the landlord would take action against the engineer for falsifying the report.
  6. One of the landlord’s officers emailed the resident on 22 February 2021. They said the contractors had confirmed that they spoke to the resident, apologised for an error they made, and said they would reattend to resolve the fault (it is unclear what the fault was). The officer said the contractors had advised that the resident was not allowing access for the follow-up appointment.
  7. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 22 February 2021. He said the engineer had not entered his kitchen, falsified the report, and attended for less than ten minutes. He said the landlord had accepted the contractors’ explanation without question. He said he had not declined the follow up appointment. He asked the landlord to confirm that he would not be charged for it.
  8. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 26 April 2021. It apologised for the delay. It said it had reminded its team to progress complaints in line with its policy’s timescales. It said the contractors had confirmed that the fault on the report related to the heat meter reading being vacant. It said this reading should have been completed as part of the initial inspection. It said the engineer confirmed they took the flow rates from the bathroom and kitchen, and that the report reflected this. It said it was unable to corroborate conclusively what had happened. It clarified that the contractors wanted to reattend to carry out the heat meter reading. It said it did not uphold his complaint that the engineer had falsified the report. It said the contractors would reattend at their own cost. It offered him £10 compensation for the equivalent of a missed appointment. It also offered him £10 for its delayed complaint response, and £15 for his time and trouble raising the matter. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied,
  9. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 April 2021. He said again that the engineer was lying and did not check the kitchen tap. He did not believe the compensation for the delayed complaint response was adequate. The landlord responded the same day. It said it had not seen any evidence indicating that the engineer had lied. It said its offer of compensation was fair, reasonable, and proportionate.
  10. The resident escalated his complaint on 27 April 2021. He reiterated that £10 compensation was insufficient for the complaint delay. He said it had not compensated him for the “hostile and inaccurate representation of the facts” from its officer’s email on 22 February. He asked for evidence that he would not be charged for the follow up appointment.
  11. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 19 May 2021. It apologised for the tone of the email from 22 February. It said when the resident logged his complaint, it should have explained that complaints about specific individuals needed to be raised with their team. It reiterated that it could not determine whether the engineer falsified the report. It said the fault on the report related to the heat meter reading. It confirmed that the contractors would reattend at their own cost. It offered him £65 compensation which comprised of:
    1. £10 for the follow up appointment.
    2. £25 for complaint handling (delay, and for not clearly explaining its complaint remit).
    3. £30 for time, trouble, inconvenience, and the tone from the email on 22 February 2021.
  12. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
  13. The resident referred his complaint to his MP on 28 May 2021. He said he did not believe the landlord had carried out an independent review for its stage two response, as it had inadvertently sent him comments it had sought from the officer who conducted the stage one review. The comments were, in parts, dismissive of the complainant’s concerns. The resident explained to the MP that he found the comments to be hurtful and unprofessional, and undermined his confidence in the landlord’s complaints process.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will offer up to £100 for time, trouble, and inconvenience when its failing has caused a minor disruption. It will offer up to £25 for complaint handling when its failing has caused a low-level impact. Its offer for a missed appointment will depend on it contract with its contractor.
  2. The landlord’s complaints procedure sets out that it will issue its stage one complaint response within ten working days. It also explains that as part of the stage two complaint investigation, the landlord can discuss the case with the staff who carried out the stage one review “to establish what steps were undertaken as part of their investigation and how they arrived at their stage one determination”.
  3. The resident claimed the engineer falsified the report as they did not enter his kitchen. The landlord said the engineer had confirmed they took the correct measurements. It explained the report reflected the engineer’s account of events. It said it was unable to corroborate conclusively what had happened. Given that there was no evidence available to the landlord supporting the allegation that the report was falsified, its explanations to the resident on the matter were not unreasonable ones. 
  4. The landlord explained that the contractors needed to reattend as they had failed to carry out a heat meter reading. It acknowledged its error, apologised for the inconvenience this would cause, and offered the resident £10 compensation (equivalent for a missed appointment). The landlord’s policy does not specify how much it will offer for a missed appointment. However, £10 is the usual amount seen in social landlord’s compensation policies, so the amount was in line with that.
  5. The landlord took 44 working days to issue its stage one complaint response. It clearly exceeded its target timeframe of ten working days. It apologised for the delay, explained that it had reminded its team to abide to its timeframes. It also acknowledged that it had not explained its complaint remit to the resident, and that the resident was dissatisfied with the tone of an email from a staff member.
  6. The landlord offered the resident £25 compensation for its complaint handling, and £30 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience. These offers were in line with its compensation policy. They were also reasonable amounts in the circumstances of this complaint as the delay was not excessive, and there is no evidence to show there was a specific impact on the resident, apart from inconvenience, as a result of the landlord’s shortcomings.
  7. The resident explained to his MP that he was dissatisfied the landlord had sought information from the officer who investigated the stage one complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy states that, when conducting a stage two review, it may liaise with the individual who issued the initial response. That would also be good practice and common sense. However, the comments shared with the resident were clearly inappropriately phrased and presented, even if they had not been intended to be shared. Internal documents related to a complaint are subject to data protection rules, and would always have the potential to be seen by the resident. This is a clear example of the importance of maintaining basic professional standards at all times, even when out of sight. This mistake happened at the end of the landlord’s complaints process, and so the landlord did not have the opportunity to comment on the matter or attempt to put it right. Nonetheless, it was a service failure in the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s complaint, and the impact on him, as he explained to the MP, is understandable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint.


Reasons

  1. The landlord’s response to the allegation of a falsified inspection report was reasonable. It acknowledged its shortcomings in terms of an error in the report, a delayed complaint response, and not explaining its complaint remit. It apologised and offered a reasonable amount of compensation for these failings. However, its staff made personal and subjective comments about the resident and his complaint, and then shared them with him in error. That was a service failing. It happened after the end of the complaints process, and the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to remedy the matter.

Orders

  1. In light of the service failure found in this investigation, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to acknowledge and apologise for its mistake with the comments.
    2. Pay the resident £75 for the distress caused to him.
  2. These two orders must be completed within four weeks of the date of this letter. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to this Service by the deadline.