Peabody Trust (202203065)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203065

Peabody Trust

19 January 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. reports regarding pest proofing works;
   2. request for permission for new wood flooring.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 21 June 2017. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a first floor flat.
3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy.
4. The landlord operates a pest policy. The policy notes the landlord will endeavour to address instances of pest infestations within seven working days. It also notes it may carry out proofing works to prevent further infestations.
5. The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes the landlord will endeavour to complete non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days. The policy also notes that while the landlord is responsible for replacing floor boards, or flooring in the kitchen and bathroom, the resident is responsible for all other flooring.

Summary of events

6. Prior to August 2019, the resident experienced mice entering her property. It is not disputed that the landlord arranged for bating works to address the infestation. During the bating process, the landlord’s pest control contractor advised the resident that some proofing works could be carried out to prevent further infestations. These included sealing gaps where the floor met the wall, and around pipework.
7. In or around early August 2019, the resident queried with the landlord as to whether it would be able to carry out the proofing works. It is not evident that the landlord replied and so she raised a formal complaint on or around 16 August 2019. She noted that she was not currently experiencing an infestation, but requested that the proofing works be completed.
8. The landlord replied seeking further information on 23 August 2019, and confirmed it had now logged a complaint on 27 August 2019. Based on the landlord’s internal communications, it was unable to immediately arrange a quote as it was in the process of changing pest control contractors. It is evident that it had a quote from its new contractor by 3 October 2019, at which point it attempted to telephone the resident to arrange for the works. After attempting several more times without a response, it informed the resident by post that as she had not responded, it would now close the complaint.
9. A year later, on 24 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and noted she hadn’t heard any further details about the proofing works. She also advised she had been offered new wooden floorboards at no cost, and so requested urgent permission for the installation. She also advised that she did not have access to a telephone and that she wished for email correspondence only. She noted “there should be plenty of notes on my housing file confirming this.”
10. The landlord replied on 25 September 2020 that it could not give permission without carrying out an inspection first, and measured the resident’s expectations that it may not be able to do so with the urgency she had requested. It also provided her with information from its policy regarding flooring, which noted it may not approve wooden floorboards where there was another property below. It provided her with the link to arrange the inspection.
11. On the same date, the resident expressed concern that the landlord’s conditions would mean she would be denied permission as there was a property beneath hers. She also noted there was already hard flooring in place. She advised reiterated that as per her current complaint, there were some gaps where the current flooring met the wall. She also expressed concern that this was affecting the heating.
12. The landlord replied on 28 September 2020 that it had forwarded her request to her Neighbourhood Manager for them to urgently consider. It also noted her comments regarding the complaint relating to the proofing works and advised that this had been closed, and that it would not reopen it due to the time that had elapsed.
13. On 30 September 2020, the resident disputed that she had been informed the complaint had been closed, and reiterated she should only be contacted by email. She advised that she still wanted the pest proofing works completed.
14. On or around 2 October 2020, the Neighbourhood manager confirmed the landlord would not provide permission for wooden floorboards, but that as a goodwill gesture, it would offer £150 towards the installation of any other suitable flooring.
15. On 26 October 2020, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision, and advised that even with its offer of £150, she would be unable to afford new alternative flooring. She also reiterated her concerns that the gaps were affecting her heating.
16. On 30 October 2020, the landlord reiterated that it would not reopen her earlier complaint, but that it would still complete the proofing works and encouraged the resident to arrange for a suitable time.
17. The resident expressed further dissatisfaction regarding the landlord’s decision about the floors and again reiterated that she was unable to receive telephone calls, and that she was unable to receive post due to her post box being damaged and post getting stolen.
18. On 5 November 2020, the landlord advised it was treating her concerns about the flooring as a new complaint, and provided its stage one response. It noted the timeframes in which it had responded to her request for floor boards and noted it had given its final response within seven days, which it considered to have been reasonable in the circumstances. It reiterated its policy regarding wooden flooring where there was a property below, and also reiterated its offer of £150 towards alternative flooring. It noted the resident’s concerns about affording alternative flooring and signposted her to organisations that may be able to help.
19. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint and requested that a stage two response for the complaint about the proofing works be included at the same time. On 16 November 2020, the landlord advised it agreed to provide a stage two response for the proofing works, but advised that as the complaints had involved different service areas, it would provide separate responses. On 7 December 2020, the landlord advised it required further time to investigate her complaint.
20. The landlord provided its stage two response regarding the proofing works on 18 December 2020. It reiterated that it had attempted to call and also wrote by post to the resident at the time, but noted that the resident had advised she had previously informed the landlord of her contact preferences, which it should have been aware of. It apologised that this had not been recorded and confirmed that it had now been added to its system. It also apologised that its stage two response had been delayed and offered £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience both these issues had caused. It also noted that at the time of the initial complaint, there had been delays to it arranging the works due to changing pest control contractors. It offered a further £50 for this delay.
21. The landlord also provided its stage two response regarding the flooring on 22 December 2020. It noted it had declined her request to install floorboards and that it had offered £150 as a goodwill gesture towards alternative flooring. The landlord also addressed some of the resident’s specific questions, and advised that its properties were let without a top floor covering as this is the responsibility of the incoming tenant. It noted that its response had been delayed and so offered £50 compensation for the delay, and a further £50 for the inconvenience caused. It also reiterated that the £150 towards alternative flooring was still available.
22. The Ombudsman is aware that following the landlord’s responses, there have been further issues relating to the completion of the proofing works. The resident has raised a separate complaint regarding this issue, which has also been referred to this service. The events that are subject to that new complaint will be investigated separately.

Assessment and findings

Proofing works

23. As per the landlord’s pest policy, the landlord has a responsibility to consider if proofing works are required to prevent pest infestations. The landlord’s pest contractor recommended works to seal various gaps in the skirting board and behind pipes. The resident has advised that the pest contractor informed her the works were necessary, however, it is not evident whether this was subsequently reported to the landlord by the pest contractor. Following the resident alerting the landlord, however, the Ombudsman would expect it to make reasonable enquiries with its pest contractor, or otherwise satisfy itself as to whether the works were necessary.
24. As noted above, following the resident raising her concerns with the landlord, it is not evident that the landlord responded to her. While she was not experiencing an active infestation, the Ombudsman would nevertheless expect a landlord to respond within a reasonable timeframe. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord later acknowledged and apologised for these delays in its formal responses.
25. Having accepted her complaint, the landlord appropriately sought further information and then liaised with its pest contractor. As noted later by the landlord, it was in the process of changing pest contractors, which caused some delay to its later attempts to communicate with the resident about commencing works. While this delay was unavoidable due to the previous contract ending, the Ombudsman would nevertheless expect the landlord to keep the resident informed of its actions. It is not evident it sought to do so until its attempted telephone calls in early October 2019, leaving the resident unsure of how it intended to proceed. Given that there was an open complaint, the landlord should have ensured it was keeping the resident informed throughout its attempts to resolve the complaint, which it did not do. It was appropriate therefore that in its later stage two response, it acknowledged this delay and offered £50 compensation. While it would have been frustrating for the resident to have to wait for an update from the landlord, there was no present pest infestation, and so the compensation was proportionate to the level of impact on the resident. The Ombudsman notes this compensation also relates to delays to the landlord’s stage two response, which is discussed further below.
26. Upon agreeing to carry out works with its new pests contractor, it is evident that the pests contractor attempted to call the resident on a number of occasions in October 2019, however, it was unable to make contact. The landlord subsequently wrote to the resident by post to advise that as she had not responded, it would now close the complaint.
27. The resident has noted that she had previously informed the landlord that she is unable to use the telephone, and that she prefers not to receive post due to there being damage to her mail box and issues with post being stolen. It is not disputed that she previously discussed these preferences with the landlord, but that the landlord did not have a formal record. This service has not, however, been provided with evidence relating to when the landlord was previously informed, what the context was, nor whether the landlord confirmed it would use such contact preferences going forward. It is also the case that the reason for not wishing to receive post (i.e. that the mail box was damaged) is not necessarily a permanent reason not to send correspondence by post, given that this could be repaired. Nevertheless, in its stage two response, the landlord acknowledged that best practice would have been to ensure its records were sufficiently robust to record the resident’s preferences. It apologised that it had not done so, and offered £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience this has caused.
28. When assessing the reasonableness of this offer of compensation, the Ombudsman must consider what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. While the landlord’s records regarding contact preferences could have been improved, as noted above, it was reasonable to attempt to contact the resident by post given that her explanation for not wanting to receive post was not necessarily permanent, and that some time had now passed.
29. Additionally, when resolving a complaint, the Ombudsman expects both parties to engage with the resolution process. Following the initial communications in September 2019, it is not evident that the resident made further contact until September 2020. Given that there was some onus on the resident to continue contact regarding her complaint over this period, it would be unreasonable to hold the landlord as fully responsible for the period of time that elapsed. The landlord has demonstrated that it earnestly attempted to contact her regarding the proofing works, and that following further contact, it had remained open to rearranging the proofing works should the resident request this. Its offer of £50 compensation for failing to keep accurate records about the resident’s contact preferences was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
30. Following her resumed contact, the resident requested that the landlord provide a new formal response to her complaint. The landlord noted that while it would arrange the proofing works, due to the time that had elapsed it would not reopen the complaint. The Ombudsman considers that such an approach can be reasonable, as a landlord has to manage its resources effectively and cannot keep a complaint open indefinitely. Following the resident’s explanation about the issue surrounding contact preferences, however, it was appropriate that the landlord used its discretion and reopened the complaint.
31. Having agreed to do so, it is evident there was some delay to the landlord’s response. Throughout this period, however, the landlord remained in communication with the resident. It also measured the resident’s expectations about the delay to the response due to it needing additional time to investigate. While a landlord should endeavour to keep to any deadlines noted in its complaints policy, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable for a landlord to provide a response beyond this period where its investigations are ongoing and where it provides reasonable updates to a resident. It was nevertheless appropriate that it apologised for this delay, and that it had considered this delay in its offer of compensation which also included the poor communication while it liaised with its pest contractor, as discussed above. Given that the landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations and provided updates about the delays to the response, the landlord’s offer of £50 in relation to its various delays was reasonable in the circumstances.

Flooring

32. The landlord’s repair policy notes that the resident is responsible for replacing flooring in rooms other than the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord also uses policies in relation to the types of flooring that can be used in certain properties. These policies note that hard flooring cannot be used if there is another property beneath the flooring. The Ombudsman considers that such a policy is common in the industry and is intended to reduce sound transfer between properties. Such policies are designed for the benefit of both the above and below properties.
33. When receiving a request for permission from a resident, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide a response within a reasonable timeframe. In this case, the resident also expressed that she needed an answer urgently. The landlord advised in order to consider permission, it would need to carry out an inspection. Given the impact flooring could have on other properties, this request was reasonable. The landlord also measured the resident’s expectations by providing information about its policy and when it may provide permission. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request within one day, and also escalated her request to its Neighbourhood Manager within three days. The landlords decision was then provided on 2 October 2020, one week following the resident’s initial query. Given that the landlord needed to carefully consider the impact of the request, this timeframe was reasonable, especially given that it had communicated with her throughout and measured her expectations at the earliest opportunity.
34. The resident has expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision, given there was already hard flooring in the property. It is not disputed, however, that this was the flooring present when the resident moved in. This shows that the landlord hasn’t previously specifically provided permission for hard flooring. While the current flooring may not be in line with the landlord’s policies, it was nevertheless reasonable for it to refuse permission for new hard wood flooring, in line with its policies.
35. Given that the resident expressed her concerns about affordability for alternative flooring, the landlord acted appropriately by using its discretion to offer a contribution towards alternative flooring. It also appropriately signposted the resident to organisations who may be able to provide financial assistance, in line with best practice.
36. As part of her request, the resident expressed her concerns about gaps in the current flooring affecting her heating. While new flooring may have addressed this concern, as noted above, throughout the period of the complaint, the landlord has remained open to carrying out proofing works to close these gaps.
37. The landlord’s stage two response appropriately reiterated its position and provided information about its policy. It also appropriately reiterated its offer of £150 towards alternative flooring, and used its response to provide further information about flooring.
38. As with its other response, there was some delay in issuing its stage two response, which the landlord acknowledged and apologised for. While this delay did not affect the outcome of the complaint, it would nevertheless have been frustrating for the resident. It was therefore appropriate that it offered £50 compensation for the delay, and a further £50 for the inconvenience caused, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

39. 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 its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s:
    1. reports regarding pest proofing works;
    2. request for permission for new wood flooring.

Reasons

Proofing works

40. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s request for proofing works were delayed. While this was in part due to changing contractors, the landlord has appropriately acknowledged its communication was poor and offered £50 compensation. While the landlord endeavoured to arrange the repair works with the resident, it is not disputed it did not have accurate records of the resident’s preferred contact methods, which contributed to further delay. The landlord also appropriately offered £50 compensation, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the total compensation offered amounted to reasonable redress.

Flooring

41. The landlord responded to the resident’s initial request within a reasonable timeframe, and its response was in line with its policies, which were reasonable and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect. The landlord also appropriately used its discretion to offer additional support. Its formal complaint response, however, was delayed, which the landlord appropriately acknowledged and offered a total of £100 compensation for, which amounted to reasonable redress for this part of the complaint.

Recommendations

42. The landlord to reiterate its offer of compensation totalling £200 across both the complaints, as well as its offer of £150 towards alternative flooring, should either be yet to be accepted.