Peabody Trust (202108894)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108894

Peabody Trust

19 September 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:
1. The condition of the property when it was let to the resident.
2. The unsuitability of the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.
4. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The suitability of the property.
This is because the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
The Memorandum of Understanding between the Housing Ombudsman and Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) sets out the complaints that each Ombudsman is responsible for considering. This states that the LGSCO is responsible for complaints about:
1. Housing allocations under the Housing Act 1996 Part VI.
2. The assessment of such applications and the operation of the choice-based lettings schemes and about the suitability of accommodation offered under those schemes.
As such, the complaint about the suitability of the property falls within the jurisdiction of the LGSCO. If the resident wishes to pursue this part of the complaint, she can contact the LGSCO directly.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a bedsit let to the resident on an assured shorthold tenancy agreement (converting to an assured tenancy agreement) that began in May 2021.
The resident considers herself vulnerable and has provided the landlord and this Service with details of her medical conditions of PTSD, anxiety, IBS and arthritis.
The landlord has a voids policy that sets out how it manages empty properties. It commits to carry out void works to an agreed standard but it does not outline what this standard refers to. It also commits to check gas, electricity and asbestos if required during the void period, ensuring it meets legislative requirements.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 aims to ensure rented homes are ‘fit for human habitation’ which means they are safe, healthy and free from things that could cause serious harm – for example, if it is in poor condition, it has an unsafe layout or it is difficult to prepare and cook food or wash up.
The landlord’s rehousing policy aims to ensure allocations are fair and transparent and all priority transfers are undertaken as efficiently as possible. It gives guidelines on the transfer banding system; for example, ‘health and disability’ is assessed as band 1 and it will arrange an independent assessment of medical applicants where it believes an applicant falls into this category.
The landlord has an aids and adaptations policy and defines these as alterations carried out to a disabled or vulnerable resident’s home to enable them to continue to carry out day to day activities. They are either structural alterations or the provision of equipment that is fixed in place. It refers to an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment to determine the needs of the resident. It states that as an alternative to installing major aids and adaptations (such as alterations to bathrooms, including wet rooms), the resident may consider making an application for an internal transfer to a more suitable property in line with the landlord’s transfer policy.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of this complaint (March 2018) refers to its 2-stage approach. However, it did not refer to timescales for responding. It has since reviewed its policy (February 2023) and commits to comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord’s compensation policy refers to time, trouble and inconvenience payments (up to a maximum of £400) depending upon the level of disruption the service failure has caused to the resident. It refers to poor complaint handling of a maximum compensation payment of £100. In relation to no heat or hot water, it gives a guidance of £3 per day after the initial 24 hours and £1 per day for no hot water (capped at £5 per day) during winter months.

Summary of events

To give context only, the resident has provided information to confirm that she reluctantly signed the tenancy agreement for the property. She was unhappy about its unsuitability for her needs from the start but felt that she had no choice but to accept the property as it was made through a homeless application and she immediately requested a review of the decision.
The landlord has confirmed that in May 2021, after the resident moved into her new home, it visited her but at this point it did not note any concerns about the property or health issues.
Shortly after, on 26 May 2021, the resident requested to move on medical grounds and a medical assessment form was sent to her.
On 29 July 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord to advise that the resident had complained about the condition of the property when it was let to her, noting the lack of the following:
1. Floor covering.
2. Electrical socket for her washing machine.
3. Wash hand basin.
4. Heating and hot water.

It was also noted that repairs were required to the front door. The resident said that a formal complaint had been made to the landlord on 14 July 2021 but she had not received a response.

The landlord’s records show that on 4 August 2021, it spoke to the resident and she expressed dissatisfaction with the complaint resolution. It noted it did not appear to have sent a full response and she requested to move if the bathroom issue could not be resolved. No records have been provided to confirm the landlord’s proposals at this point.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint to the resident on 12 August 2021. It confirmed the following:
1. The operations manager visited the resident’s home and the heat and hot water issue had already been rectified.
2. It was confirmed that floor coverings were only provided in the kitchen and bathroom. Whilst it did not confirm that these were present, the resident has since clarified that they were in situ.
3. It had offered a solution to the wash hand basin issue integral to the toilet.
4. It had tried contacting the resident to see if the socket and door handle issues had been resolved and asked her to contact it if this was not the case.
5. It apologised if the move had not been as smooth as it should have been.
The same day, the resident sent an email to the landlord in response to the stage 1 complaint response and attached pictures of the toilet and front door, asking it to review them before she proceeded to a stage 2 complaint. She referred to the following concerns:
1. A combination basin/toilet would not be suitable due to space.
2. She had suggested a shower cubicle to allow space for a separate sink and more room in the toilet.
3. The radiator had been removed from the bathroom due to the lack of space.
4. The door handle was awaiting a locksmith.
5. Pictures of the pipe connecting the washing machine were attached stating it sometimes leaks.
6. Overall, she stated the property was not suitable for her needs due to its size.
On 16 August 2021, the landlord’s records show that it moved the washing machine at the property and checked for leaks, confirming all was working correctly.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 August 2021, concerned that she had not heard back from it and she said that if she did not hear by the end of that day, she would escalate the complaint to stage 2.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 August 2021, stating that it had proposals for the bathroom of a shower/wet room. A number of emails were then exchanged as the resident wanted further information of what this would entail. A proposal for an integral toilet and wash hand basin had previously been discussed but the resident had confirmed she would not be able to reach over to the basin.
On 24 August 2021, the resident sent the landlord an email still contemplating on the suggestion of a wet room but concerned about the small space and she asked for more time to make her decision. She also raised the main front door handle that she said required replacing and requested additional locks.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 27 August 2021 to confirm the alterations to the bathroom would not work for her as she was concerned that water would fall everywhere, including in the passage, potentially causing damp issues.
On 2-3 September 2021, the landlord’s internal emails confirm it had spoken to the resident and she agreed that a stage 2 was not necessary as her needs were for a bigger property. It said that it would discuss what assistance it could provide.
The landlord’s records of 8 September 2021 show that another medical questionnaire was sent via the post and it has confirmed that this was because it did not receive the one it posted in May 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 September 2021, giving reasons why she wanted to escalate her complaint; this Service has not been provided with a copy of the email. However, the resident refers to this in later correspondence and the landlord acknowledged receipt in its stage 2 response.
The resident has provided a copy of a letter sent to the landlord dated 29 September 2021 from her GP. It explained the great difficulty she was having with her current home in relation to the space and health issues. No evidence has been provided by the landlord to confirm how it dealt with the matter at that point.
This Service sent its first request for action to the landlord on 12 October 2021, in relation to escalating her complaint and providing a response no later than 26 October 2021. The landlord responded on 14 October 2021, advising that it had declined the stage 2 complaint with the resident’s input due to her requesting a move to larger accommodation. It was advised to write to the resident to confirm its position.
On 29 October 2021, the resident’s mental health recovery and wellbeing worker provided a letter to support her request to move which the resident confirmed had been provided to the landlord. It recommended rehousing to a property suitable to her medical conditions, ideally noting a 1-bedroom property.
The resident has provided an email that she sent to the landlord on 31 October 2021 with a medical questionnaire and support letters from her GP, support worker and copy of her prescriptions attached. The landlord has confirmed it received this, an acknowledgement was sent to the resident the following day and the medical assessment was sent to its external assessor in line with its lettings policy.
On 3 November 2021, the landlord sent a letter to the resident to update on next steps in relation to reviewing the stage 2 complaint about the following:
1. Not having access to washing facilities.
2. Not having a radiator in the bathroom.
3. Its response to her request to be moved to a more suitable property.
4. The length of time it took for it to resolve the heating and hot water issues.
5. The kitchen not having room for a cooker or washing machine.
On 4 November 2021, the resident replied to confirm the points raised and she elaborated further in relation to her concerns that the property was not habitable and referred it to her email of 9 September 2021 when reasons were given for the escalation of her complaint.
The resident sent this Service an email on 18 November 2021, referring to concerns with the boiler; it had been leaking and was not working for the past 2 weeks. She said that engineers had visited and confirmed the boiler required replacement.
The landlord has confirmed that on 18 November 2021, its medical assessor rejected rehousing the resident on medical grounds.
On 25 November 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its procedure and it would provide its response by 17 December 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord the following day, confirming she was without heat and hot water and this had been ongoing for a month due to a leak and faults with the boiler.
The landlord has confirmed that it sent a letter to the resident on 3 December 2021 to confirm the medical priority rejection for rehousing. However, this letter has not been made available to this Service.
The resident has provided a letter from ‘Mind’ dated 21 December 2021 that was sent to the landlord in support of her request to move. It refers to the medical priority for rehousing being declined on 29 November 2021 as it considered space as desirable and not essential. It supported her request to move and gave details of essential space requirements for medical reasons.
On 24 December 2021, the landlord has confirmed that it extended the deadline for appeal against the medical priority decision.
On 10 January 2022, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, confirming the following:
1. After moving into the property, reports were received of:
  1. No heat or hot water;
  2. No floor covering;
  3. No bathroom wash hand basin or shower.
2. The heat and hot water were restored; other works were undertaken to the door handles and it had amended the washing machine connections.
3. There was a works order to replace the boiler and it would provide an update.
4. It clarified the voids process and apologised for the repairs that were outstanding when the resident moved in.
5. It clarified that floor coverings were not provided by it.
6. It had recommended providing an integrated wash hand basin and toilet and this had been declined due to space and difficulties reaching to the basin. Another option of a wet room was offered which was declined due to the small space and concerns of water falling everywhere and damp that could develop.
7. It was recommending its void team review its processes and procedures to ensure properties are in a reasonable lettable standard.
8. It said that it could not consider the unsuitability of the property under its complaints procedure and gave details of how she could contact the local authority. Contact details of the rehousing team were also given.
9. It confirmed her request to escalate the complaint in September 2021 and noted it was not escalated because, at that point, she advised that she wanted a move. This Service had requested the landlord to escalate the complaint.
10. It offered the following compensation:
  1. £150 compensation for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience pursuing the repairs to the property.
  2. £100 complaint handling for the delays in escalating the complaint.

Summary of events after landlord’s complaint process

Between January 2022 and May 2022, communications took place between the resident and landlord about her request to appeal the decision to reject rehousing priority on medical grounds. The resident had provided various support letters to the landlord and in April 2022, the landlord made the decision to reject her appeal. It considered that space was desirable rather than essential to her needs.
The resident has provided a copy of a recent survey inspection dated 13 June 2023, confirming the property is too small and concerns in relation to the size of the bathroom, noting that the resident may be best suited for a mutual exchange. It went on to say that when it is void, alterations should be considered. It suggested the resident make an OT referral.
The landlord has confirmed that it is currently considering the recent survey findings.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property when it was let to the resident

Within the first few months of commencement of the tenancy, the resident complained to the landlord about its condition. She had numerous concerns that were outlined to it in relation to the lack of floor coverings, an electrical socket, heat/hot water, door repairs and a lack of wash hand basin in the bathroom.
The landlord acted appropriately and visited the resident about her concerns (albeit no date or inspection record has been provided) and responded to her concerns in mid-August 2021, through its stage 1 complaint, when it clarified that the heat/hot water issue had been resolved, explained that it only provided floor coverings in the kitchen and bathroom, advised that it had a solution to the lack of a wash hand basin, and explained that it had tried contacting her about the socket and door handle but was unsuccessful so asked her to make contact if these items were still outstanding.
There is no obligation on the landlord to provide floor coverings throughout a property and it acted appropriately by confirming its position to only provide these in the kitchen and bathroom. Whilst it has not evidenced that floor coverings were present in these rooms, the resident later confirmed to this Service that they were in situ when she moved in.
The landlord has a voids policy that outlines how it deals with empty properties, committing to carry out work to an agreeable standard, although it has not provided the evidence to suggest what this agreeable standard refers to and therefore an assessment against the standard cannot be reached. Neither has it provided its void inspection report to confirm details of the inspection or the later inspection it carried out when the resident raised concerns – this indicates that the landlord’s record keeping was insufficient. The Ombudsman expects landlords to retain key information as record keeping is an important part of effective housing management. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report (May 2023) on Knowledge Information and Management (KIM) provides best practice and recommendations for landlords.
When inspecting empty properties, the landlord must be mindful of its legislative duties. For example, the Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 places a duty on landlords to ensure homes are safe and habitable. This involves the assessment of facilities and layout of a home, and it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord should assess facilities in a property and identify when a bathroom does not have a wash hand basin fitted.
It is apparent that space is a potential issue in the property that has made finding a solution to the wash hand basin issue difficult. However, the landlord should have identified the issue in relation to the lack of a wash hand basin (and radiator) during the void period – this would have allowed it to consider options (albeit limited) to ensure all facilities were available in the bathroom before it let the property.
It was inappropriate that the landlord did not identify the outstanding repairs prior to the start of the tenancy and communicate this with the resident, including offering timescales for completion. It is accepted that not all outstanding repairs would prevent a resident from moving into a home, but it was unreasonable that the resident was not advised of the issues and what the landlord intended to do to resolve them.
The landlord evidenced that throughout August 2021 it was looking at options for the bathroom to resolve the lack of wash hand basin and in late August 2021, it gave the resident a couple of options to consider of an integral toilet and wash hand basin and of a wet room shower. The resident considered both of these options but declined the offers as she did not feel they were suitable to her needs, noting that she would struggle to reach the basin over the toilet and had concerns about the wet room option in relation to water seepage. Nevertheless, these were appropriate steps for the landlord to take and it showed it recognised the resident’s difficulties and was working with her in an attempt to resolve the situation.
However, the resident had provided information to the landlord about how her medical conditions were being impacted by the property size, in particular the bathroom space, its lack of facilities and the difficulties she was having in relation to carrying out rehabilitation exercises. It is of concern that the landlord did not offer advice and assistance as to how the resident could apply for adaptations, under its aids and adaptations policy, and make arrangements for an OT assessment. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s circumstances in line with its aids and adaptations policy and it is unclear that it did so.
Whilst the landlord did not clearly outline whether or not the property met its voids standard, it did accept repairs were outstanding at the start of the tenancy and this caused inconvenience to the resident. It recognised its service failure through its final complaint response (January 2022), offering the resident £150 compensation for her time, trouble and inconvenience pursuing repairs.
However, it did not demonstrate that it recognised the full extent of its service failures and therefore the compensation amount was not a proportionate offer of redress. The resident explained in her email of November 2021 that she was without heat/hot water for a month due to faults with the boiler and was awaiting its replacement. Whilst the landlord advised in January 2022 that repairs were carried out to get the boiler working, it has failed to demonstrate that it completed these repairs within a reasonable timescale, whether it offered temporary heaters in the meantime and whether compensation for the period without heat/hot water was considered in line with its compensation policy.
Later, in January 2022 when the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, it confirmed that the boiler required replacement, apologised that repairs were outstanding when she moved in and said that it was recommending its voids team review the process to ensure properties are in a reasonable lettable standard. This was an appropriate demonstration that it was prepared to learn from the complaint and improve its void process going forward.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move

The resident almost immediately requested to move home upon accepting the tenancy (in May 2021). The landlord demonstrated that it acted upon her request and sent out appropriate rehousing option information about the different schemes it operated, including ‘Home Hunt’ (a scheme it operated with partner organisations).
At the same time, it also acted appropriately and sent a medical assessment form to the resident as she had previously expressed concerns about her health and referenced how the property was impacting this.
There were subsequent delays in the landlord receiving the medical questionnaire and it had to send another form to the resident in early September 2021.
A supporting letter from the resident’s GP was apparently sent to the landlord at the end of September 2021. However, it is unclear of the date this was sent and there is no evidence to show that the landlord received the letter. Further supporting documentation was nevertheless sent to the landlord at the end of October 2021, supporting the resident’s request to move. The landlord received this and has evidenced that it acted appropriately by acknowledging it and passing the resident’s medical information onto its external medical assessor in accordance with its lettings policy.
The landlord made its decision to decline medical priority for a transfer in mid-November 2021 and it confirmed that a decision letter was sent to the resident in early December 2021. Whilst the landlord has not provided its decision letter, the supporting letter sent to the landlord from ‘Mind’ (in December 2021) confirms that a decision had been made and communicated.
The landlord advised in late December 2021 that it had extended the medical priority appeal deadline and there were further communications on this after the landlord’s final complaint response. Although this Service has not been provided with full records of the landlord’s decision making process, it is not disputed that the appeal decision was reached in April 2022 and the landlord gave its reasoning to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident approached this Service in July 2021 as she had apparently made a previous complaint direct to the landlord on 14 July 2021 and had not received a response. Once this Service contacted the landlord in late July 2021, it did provide the resident with a response in mid-August 2021, within a reasonable timeframe.
When the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, it did not fully address the issue of whether its lettable standard was met. It provided some explanation and apologised that the move was not smooth but it did not fully investigate the resident’s concerns about the void property process. This was unreasonable and no doubt added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience of having to pursue the complaint further.
The same day, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction and gave the landlord an opportunity to resolve her concerns before progressing to a stage 2 complaint, itemising areas of dissatisfaction, providing photographs in support. The resident confirmed in September 2021 that she wanted the complaint to be escalated.
The landlord acted inappropriately when it failed to respond to the stage 2 complaint request and this Service had to intervene in mid-October 2021. It later became apparent that the landlord had declined the stage 2 complaint but failed to fully communicate this with the resident. It was inappropriate for the landlord to make this decision and deny escalation of a complaint without giving full details to the resident on why it believed this was the right course of action to take. Further, the discussion around the escalation took place during 2-3 September 2021 but the resident subsequently confirmed her wish for an escalation on 9 September 2021.
It was not until early November 2021 that the landlord sent the resident a letter to confirm the details of the stage 2 complaint. The landlord therefore contributed to a 2 month delay in progressing the resident’s complaint. There was a further inappropriate delay as the landlord did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until January 2022, 4 months after the original escalation request.
In November 2021, the landlord acknowledged that part of the complaint was in relation to the resident’s request for rehousing. However, its stage 2 complaint response did not demonstrate that it had adequately investigated this aspect of the complaint, apart from referring her to its rehousing team. This was unreasonable and meant that a central aspect of the complaint was not properly addressed.
Within the final complaint response, the landlord did acknowledge its complaint handling delays in escalating the complaint and offered £100 redress for this element of service failure. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the delays, it did not fully consider the extent of the service failures, the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Given the period of the delay and the January 2022 response failing to offer a full answer to the resident’s re-housing concerns, this level of compensation was insufficient.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the condition of the property when it was let to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The condition of the property when it was let to the resident

The landlord failed to demonstrate that it retained key records to confirm whether or not it considered the void property met its lettable standard. It could not demonstrate that it identified the lack of wash hand basin at the inspection and that it considered how it could resolve the matter prior to letting the property. Further, it recognised that some repairs were outstanding at the start of the tenancy but did not communicate these to the resident and failed to recognise the duration of time the resident was without heat and hot water during the winter period. Although it apologised and awarded compensation, this was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move

The landlord responded promptly to offer the resident an assessment form when she initially made a request to move in May 2021. When it received medical evidence in October 2021, it responded within a reasonable timescale, rejecting the request. Additional evidence was provided on behalf of the resident in December 2021 and the landlord extended the appeal timescale to allow for additional communications in early 2022 before rejecting the appeal in April 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord was obliged to approve the re-housing request or that it overlooked the evidence provided by the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord delayed unreasonably in escalating and responding to the resident’s continued dissatisfaction. It also failed to provide a full and thorough response to the complaints in regard to the lettable standard and the rehousing concerns. Its compensation offer was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified within this report.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £600 (including its offer of £250 if it has not already done so) as follows:
1. £350 in relation to the condition of the property when it was let to the resident.
2. £250 in relation to the associated complaint and communication handling.
Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to review its void process in order to ensure that it:
1. Fully assesses and identifies issues in relation to property condition, fixtures and fittings (or lack of);
2. Retains accurate records of any inspections completed as part of this.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should write to the resident and advise how it intends to proceed given the findings of the recent survey report and provide its updated rehousing position.
The landlord should reply to this Service to confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation.