Peabody Trust (202108030)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108030

Peabody Trust

5 May 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:
1. response to the resident’s reports about multiple disrepair issues at his property;
2. the amount of compensation offered by the landlord for the loss of cooking facilities;
3. complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since around 2000. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
At the time of the complaint, the resident was residing in shared sheltered accommodation. Another tenant (Mr A) resided at the property with the resident until 16 June 2021. Both the resident and Mr A had their own bedroom at the property, but shared the kitchen and bathroom.
Mr A has raised a separated complaint to this service relating to the same issues which were the subject of an investigation by the Ombudsman in November 2022 (reference 202102479). This investigation found both maladministration and service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs and complaints handling, and made an order for £600 compensation in addition to the landlord’s offer of £850.
Throughout the course of the complaint, issues with the property were reported by both the resident and Mr A on behalf of each other. Unless necessary to distinguish between them, this report will refer to all correspondence having come from the resident.
Throughout the course of the complaint, the resident informed the landlord that the issues he was experiencing were having a negative impact on his mental health. The resident is supported by a support worker. The resident has also received support from an advocate, who at times has corresponded with the landlord on the resident’s behalf.
The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes that non urgent repairs will be responded to within 28 calendar days.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that issues should be reported within six months of the resident becoming aware of the issue in order for it to be considered under the policy.
The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes it may offer up to £400 for a resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience. It may offer £25 for a “minor” complaint handling failure. Where cooking facilities are unavailable, it may offer £10 per day. The policy also notes the landlord will normally offset any compensation payment against outstanding rent arrears or other debt the resident may have with it.

Summary of events

Based on the landlord’s repair records, the resident reported on 27 February 2020 that the ceiling in the shared kitchen was sagging and required repairs following a leak from the property above in 2019.
On 18 March 2020, the resident also reported that the extractor fan in the shared bathroom was not working, and emergency lighting throughout the property was not working correctly. On 19 March 2020, the resident also raised concerns about mould in the shared bathroom as a result of the leak. The landlord’s records show that a job was raised to “attend and rectify.”
The landlord’s repair notes show that an operative attended on 24 March 2020. The operative identified that the ceiling was “sagging” as a result of the leak, and “was about to fall apart.” They therefore recommended removal and replacement.
An operative attended again in May 2020 and the ceiling was “made safe.” The landlord later noted the operative installed nails to the ceiling to prevent it from sagging. Works to “fix the plasterboard, skimming and painting” commended on 25 August 2020.
On 24 September 2020, the resident reported that the shared toilet was not flushing correctly and that water was backing up. The landlord’s records do not indicate this report was attended to or otherwise addressed.
On 27 January 2021, the resident’s advocate made a formal complaint on behalf of the resident and Mr A. The complaint letter is dated 30 October 2020, however, the advocate has provided evidence to show it was not sent to the landlord until 27 January 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 February 2021.
The complaint noted that there was an insect infestation in the property, that the kitchen and appliances were in a state of disrepair, that the toilet remained blocked, and that there had been a number of missed appointments by the landlord’s operatives. The complaint also referred to ongoing issues with mould in the property. The complaint noted that these issues had been ongoing since 2019. The resident did not consider that the kitchen was in a useable state and so wished to be compensated for the cost of all meals for the previous 12 months, as well as for the distress and inconvenience caused by the other issues.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 27 April 2021, which included the following:
1. Regarding the resident’s request for compensation going back to 2019, the landlord explained that it was not able to consider compensation for issues that occurred over six months prior to a formal complaint being raised. It advised that it did not have any records indicating concerns were raised in 2019 relating to the loss of the use of the kitchen and so advised it would not offer compensation for this period.
2. It acknowledged that a report regarding the kitchen had been made in November 2020, and that works were not completed until December 2020. It therefore offered compensation of £350 compensation for this period, being £10 for 35 days.
3. Regarding the other repair issues, it noted it had received a report regarding the toilet in September 2020, but that repairs had now been completed. It also noted concerns about the extractor fans and advised works to address these had also been completed. Regarding mould in the property, it noted that this had been treated in April 2021.
4. Regarding the reports of an inspect infestation, and the kitchen and appliances being in a poor state of repair, it advised that the resident should contact its repairs team to raise these as a repair.
5. In addition to the compensation for the loss of the kitchen, it offered a further £100 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience. It offered the same amount of compensation to Mr A. It noted that the resident was in rent arrears, and so in accordance with its policy, it would apply the compensation to the resident’s rent account.
A similar response was sent to Mr A around this time.
The resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 9 May 2021. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision not to consider his concerns about the loss of the kitchen from 2019. He further expressed concern about the loss of the use of the boiler in April 2020, following which there was no hot water in the property until it was reconnected on 9 May 2021. Mr A also requested an escalation of his complaint at this time.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 10 May 2021. On 26 May 2021, it advised that its stage two investigation was still ongoing.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 22 June 2021, which included the following:
1. It reiterated that it was unable to consider issues from 2019 that had not been raised as a formal complaint at the time.
2. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about how the issues were affecting his mental health. It advised that it did not offer compensation in relation to this as this required an assessment as to whether there had been negligence. It advised such an assessment was for its insurer.
3. It reiterated that if there were any outstanding repair issues not previously reported, such as the insect infestation, that the resident should report this to its repairs team.
4. Regarding the resident’s concerns about the period without a boiler, the landlord advised that he should have “raised this at the time and we would have addressed it.”
5. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for delays to some of the repairs reported, and explained this had been due to a backlog of repairs following COVID-19.
6. It therefore increased the amount of compensation for time and trouble to £400. It also offered £25 compensation for the delay to its stage two response. It noted that its total offer of compensation was £850. It advised that the £350 for the loss of the kitchen between November and December 2020 would be paid to the resident directly, and the remainder would be applied to his rent account. The same compensation was offered to Mr A.
A similar response was also provided to Mr A at this time.
In July 2021, the resident advised he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses. He also noted a number of outstanding repair concerns, including ongoing issues with damp and mould, and disrepair issues with the carpet and bathroom.
The landlord visited the property on 11 August 2021 and agreed to carry out the reported repairs, and also to replace the appliances in the kitchen. The landlord did not provide timeframes for these works. A further inspection in October 2021 identified that the kitchen ceiling needed to be replaced.

Assessment and findings

Repairs – toilet

It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for keeping the property in a good state of repair.
Based on the landlord’s repair records, the resident reported that his toilet was blocked on 24 September 2020. The records do not note when the landlord acknowledged this report, the timescale that was provided, or when the repair was completed. In the resident’s formal complaint, the resident’s advocate noted that while the resident had been advised by the landlord that its operative would attend as an emergency appointment, this did not occur and the repair remained outstanding.
The landlord addressed this repair in its stage one response dated 27 April 2021 and advised that the repair had now been completed. However, it failed to address the resident’s concerns that there had been a missed appointment. Given that the resident had reported at the time there was sewage leaking from the toilet, this should have been attended to as an emergency appointment. Given this did not occur, the landlord’s failure to address the missed appointment would have been frustrating for the resident.
It also missed the opportunity in its stage one response to clarify on what dates the repairs had been completed. While it alluded in its stage two report to the repairs having been completed in October 2020, it once again failed to address the missed emergency appointment.

Repairs – insect infestation

Regarding the reports of an insect infestation, the landlord advised the resident in its stage one response to raise this as a repair with its repair team. It is not evident that the resident had specifically reported this concern prior to his formal complaint, and so it was reasonable that the landlord did not find service failure given that it was unaware of the issue.
Given, however, that the resident expressed his concerns about the infestation in some detail, it would have been best practice for the landlord to have raised a repair job on his behalf, rather than simply referring him to its repairs team. Additionally, given that the resident reiterated this concern in his stage two response and it was evident he hadn’t referred it to the repairs team, the landlord once again had the opportunity to raise the repairs on his behalf as part of its stage two response. It did not do this, however.

Repairs – bathroom

The resident also raised concerns about mould in the bathroom, the bathroom extractor fan not working, and issues with the lighting throughout the property. The records indicate that these concerns were raised in or around March 2020, and remained outstanding at the time of the resident’s formal complaint.
In its stage one response, the landlord advised it had treated the mould in the bathroom on 1 April 2021. It also confirmed the extractor fan and issues with the lighting had been repaired in April 2021. The resident acknowledged this had been the case in his escalation request.
While it was appropriate that these repairs were completed, the landlord failed to use its formal responses to explain why there had been a delay of over a year for their completion, nor did it offer an apology for the delay.
In a subsequent communication to the resident, the landlord highlighted that it deals with many repair requests every day, and that it is useful for residents to chase it up where they consider a repair to have been missed. While this would certainly be helpful, the responsibility for repairs remains with the landlord once it has been informed of an issue. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to have robust systems in place to ensure repairs are recorded an monitored effectively. This clearly was not the case with these repairs.

Repairs – boiler

In his complaint escalation, the resident referred to a period from “April 2020” to May 2021 where the boiler at the property was switched off following a gas safety check. In its stage two response, the landlord stated that the resident “should have raised this at the time and we would have addressed it.”
As part of this service’s request for further information, the landlord provided its gas safety report for the property from June 2020 which stated that the boiler was safe to use and had passed all tests. However, the landlord also advised that the boiler had been capped following an inspection on April 2021, and reconnected on 9 May 2021.
While it is not evident that the boiler was taken offline in April 2020, and it appears likely that the resident was instead referring to April 2021, in either case, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to ask for more information to assist its investigation.
Considering that when asked to investigate further by this service, the landlord was able to identify a period where the boiler was capped, it was not sufficient for the landlord to have simply reprimanded the resident for not reporting the issue at the time, without asking for further details. This demonstrated a lack of a reasonable investigation at the time, especially given that the resident had reported receiving temporary heaters, which the landlord should have had a record of.

Repairs – ceiling

It is evident that the resident reported that the kitchen ceiling was sagging on 27 February 2020 following a leak from the above property. The landlord subsequently attended on 24 March 2020. While this was within the timeframe for a routine repair, it is not evident how the landlord initially assessed that the issue was not urgent, especially given that during the landlord’s visit, it’s contractor noted that the ceiling “was about to fall apart.” Following this initial inspection, the landlord did not return until May 2020, at which point it nailed the sagging section in place in order to make it safe. The records refer to further works in August 2020 to replace the ceiling; however, it is evident this was not completed as a subsequent inspection in October 2021 identified the ceiling still needed to be replaced.
In its stage two response, the landlord acknowledged there had been a two month delay to its initial works to make the ceiling safe. The landlord explained this had been due to its reduced service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This service recognises that the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on landlord’s ability to carry out repairs within usual timeframes, and that this situation was outside of the landlord’s control. In such circumstances, however, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to have communicated this delay to the resident to measure their expectations.
While it was reasonable for routine repairs to have been delayed as a result of COVID-19, the Ombudsman would still expect a landlord to complete any emergency repairs in line with its responsibilities. Given the contractor’s comments that the ceiling “was about to fall apart,” the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have carried out emergency works to make the ceiling safe, rather than waiting two months to carry out such works. If the works were not an emergency, this should have been clearly articulated to the resident, which was not done in this instance.
Having made the ceiling safe, it was reasonable that there was a delay to any subsequent works to replace it given the backlog of repairs as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is not evident this was communicated to the resident at the time, which would have caused him distress.
Additionally, given that its later inspection in October 2021 identified the ceiling still required replacement, it is evident the landlord failed to correctly investigate this at the time of its stage two response, as its records should have indicated these works were outstanding. This was a missed opportunity to provide the resident with a new timeframe for the works, in order to address his concerns about the ceiling.

Repairs – summary

In summary of the above, while some of the landlord’s service delivery regarding the repair issues was reasonable, the overall delays and poor communication amounted to maladministration.
In its stage one response, the landlord offered £100 compensation to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident by its delays. In its stage two response, it advised it had increased this amount to £400, which was the highest amount it could offer as per its compensation policy. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord offered £850 in total, being made up of £350 for the loss of cooking facilities (discussed below), and £25 for its poor complaints handling (discussed below), which leaves £475, which the Ombudsman has taken to be the landlord’s total offer for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
While this amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, and demonstrated the landlord’s recognition that its failures had impacted the resident, the amount offered does not fully reflect the impact to the resident. Given the above failures, the Ombudsman orders compensation of £1,000, which is broken down as follows:
1. £200 for the landlord’s delays to the toilet repairs, and failure to address its missed appointment;
2. £100 for the landlord’s failure to raise repairs relating to the insect infestation despite multiple reports from the resident;
3. £200 for the landlord’s delays to repairs relating to damp and mould, the extractor fan, and lighting;
4. £100 for the landlord’s poor investigation of the resident’s reports regarding the period where the boiler was capped;
5. £400 for the landlord’s failure to treat the ceiling as an emergency repair, and its subsequent poor communications about ongoing delays.
This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £475. This amount is to be paid directly to the resident. If any amount has already been applied to the resident’s rent account, the landlord is to discuss with the resident as to whether he wishes this amount to be withdrawn from the rent account and paid to him directly.
The Ombudsman notes that following the landlord’s stage two response, it carried out a further inspection of the property and identified additional works, including replacing the ceiling and kitchen appliances. The landlord did not provide a timeframe for these works to be completed. Given that this took place in 2021, the Ombudsman would anticipate that these works would now be complete; however, if this is not the case, the landlord is to contact the resident and provide a strict timeframe for any outstanding works.
Additionally, given that the resident has indicated there have been issues with mould repeatedly returning to the property, the landlord is to enquire with the resident as to whether there is currently any issues with mould, or otherwise any outstanding repair issues he wishes to raise.

Compensation for loss of cooking facilities

The landlord’s repair records indicate that a further leak into the kitchen was reported by the resident on 3 November 2020. The landlord’s records are unclear on when subsequent inspections were completed; however, it is not disputed that the repair works were not completed until 7 December 2020.
In its stage one response, the landlord recognised this had left the resident without cooking facilities for a period of 35 days. It offered £350 compensation, being £10 per day. This was in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy which states it will pay residents (adults) £10 per day for the cost of additional food while cooking facilities are unavailable. The landlord advised that this offer of compensation would be applied against the resident’s rent arrears.
In his complaint escalation, the resident advised he considered the kitchen had been unusable from 2019 onwards due to the impact the earlier leak from the property above (as discussed above) had on the kitchen ceiling. He advised he had discussed this concern with his support worker, who had advised him to keep receipts for any food he purchased from 2019 onwards. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction that the compensation would be applied against his rent arrears given his expenditure on food as a result of the loss of the use of the kitchen.
In its stage two response, the landlord noted that while the works to repair the ceiling in the kitchen had been delayed, it did not consider the kitchen to have been unusable throughout this period. It also had not received any reports from either the resident or the support worker throughout this period to suggest the resident considered the kitchen unusable. It therefore would not consider compensation for this period. This was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy which notes it will not respond to issues that have not been reported within six months.
The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for a landlord to limit the timeframe for an issue to be raised as a formal complaint. This is because as time passes, it becomes more difficult for a landlord to carry out an affective investigation. While the Ombudsman does not dispute that the resident informed his support worker about his concerns about the kitchen, this service has not been presented with evidence to show the landlord was made aware that the resident considered his kitchen was unusable for cooking in 2019. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to apply its complaints policy and only consider the period from November 2020 for compensation.
While the landlord’s complaints policy notes that offers of compensation can be applied to a resident’s rent arrears, given that its offer of compensation for the loss of kitchen facilities was to reflect the additional expenditure on food, it was appropriate that the landlord changed its approach and offered the £350 compensation directly to the resident in its stage two response.
In summary, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount offered was in line with the landlord’s policies and amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Complaints handling

As noted above, the landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy notes the landlord will acknowledge a complaint within five working days and provide a stage one response within 10 working days. Further, the landlord will provide a final response within 20 working days of an escalation.
The resident’s stage one complaint was sent to the landlord on 27 January 2021 through his advocate. This service has not been provided with any correspondence to show that the landlord acknowledged this complaint.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 27 April 2021. This was outside of the timeframes in its policy and it is not evident it notified the resident there would be a delay. Additionally, the landlord did not acknowledge this delay or offer redress for distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in its stage one response.
The resident made an escalation request on 9 May 2021, which was appropriately acknowledged by the landlord on 10 May 2021. However, the landlord did not provide its stage two response until 22 June 2021. This was once again outside of the timeframes in its policy, and it is not evident that the landlord notified the resident there would be a delay.
In its stage two response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged there had been a delay and offered £25 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident. Given, however, that the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for its earlier delays, this amount does not fully reflect the impact caused to the resident. In the circumstances, there was service failure and an order for £100 has been made, being £50 for the delays and poor communication surrounding each formal response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports about multiple disrepair issues at his property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for the loss of the resident’s cooking facilities.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

Repairs

As identified above, there were multiple instances of delays to works, failure to communicate to explain the delays, failure to raise appropriate works reported by the resident, and a failure to adequately investigate the concerns raised by the resident in his formal complaint.
While the landlord offered some compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, this did not reflect the full impact caused to the resident.

Compensation for loss of cooking facilities

Given that it is not evident that the landlord was informed that the resident considered his kitchen unusable in 2019, it was reasonable for the landlord not to investigate this or offer compensation given the time that elapsed, as per its policy.
As there had been an impact to the use of the kitchen in November/December 2020, the landlord appropriately applied its compensation policy for this period, and its offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaints handling

There were delays to both the landlord’s stage one and stage two responses, and the landlord did not communicate there would be a delay in advance. While the landlord recognised the delay to its stage two response and offered some compensation, it did not acknowledge the delay to its stage one response. The amount offered therefore did not fully reflect the impact caused to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,100, comprising:
1. £1,000 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays and poor communication regarding the repair issues raised by the resident;
2. £100 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £500. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination. If any amount has already been applied to the resident’s rent account, the landlord is to contact the resident and discuss this as set out above.
Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to contact the resident and include the following:
1. should any repairs identified in 2021 remain outstanding, the landlord is to provide strict timeframes for their completion;
2. the landlord is to enquire with the resident as to whether there are currently any issues with damp and mould, or any other repair issues, and raise appropriate works if so.

Recommendations

The landlord is to reiterate its offer of £350 compensation relating to the loss of the cooking facilities in 2020, if this is yet to have been accepted.