Peabody Trust (202208073)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208073

Peabody Trust

18 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:
   1. Response to the resident’s request for access to scaffolding to be relocated.
   2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident lives in a flat on an estate of similar properties.
3. On 29 March 2022, the landlord erected scaffolding outside the resident’s property to enable repairs to the balconies of three flats above the resident’s. On 12 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to complaint that she had been away from the property and returned to find the scaffolding had been erected but she had not been notified of this in advance.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 2 May 2022, reiterating that she had not been prior to the scaffolding being erected, and when she contacted the landlord, it could not explain why notice was not provided. She further stated that contractors had been using her balcony as a means of access to the scaffolding, which she felt invaded her privacy. The resident explained the contractors working in such close proximity to her property made her feel uncomfortable and caused her stress and anxiety. In addition, the resident believed the scaffolding presented a health and safety issue, as there was no means of safe access to the scaffolding. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident requested that tarpaulin be put up around her balcony and that the access to the scaffolding be moved to the other side of the railings.
5. The landlord’s complaint response stated it understood why the resident was unhappy scaffolding had been erected outside of her property without prior notice. It informed the resident this was an oversight which it apologised for. It informed the resident that it had considered whether the scaffolding could be moved, however, it found that the scaffolding had to be situated in its position in order for its contractors to safely access the areas where repairs were required. In regard to the contractors using the resident’s balcony as a means of access to the scaffolding, it informed the resident this should not have been happening and had spoken to the contractors to request access was not gained via this method.
6. In addition, it had considered adding tarpaulin around the scaffolding, but said this was not standard practice as there was no risk of debris falling and this would purposely block the light into the resident’s property. It suggested the resident close her curtains, as this allowed her to decide if she wanted to have daylight coming into the property.
7. On 16 August 2022, the landlord removed the scaffolding from the building after the works had been fully completed.
8. The resident referred the matter to this Service on 18 August 2022 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, feeling it “brushed aside” her complaint. In addition, she felt the landlord had not considered her anxiety. As a resolution to the complaint the resident expressed a wish to have a meeting with the landlord where it could address why it ignored her concerns, for the landlord to accept mistakes were made regarding the erecting of the scaffolding and apologise, and to provide compensation for the distress she was caused.

Assessment and findings

9. In her complaint and correspondence with this Service, the resident has referenced how the situation with the scaffolding has impacted her physical and mental health and that she experienced a panic attack as a result of the scaffolding being erected without notice. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on any causal link between the actions of the landlord and any reported health issues. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint, she should seek further independent advice.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for access to the scaffolding to be relocated

10. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. In addition, the repairs policy states that repairs to external balconies are essential and need to be completed within 28 working days. In this case, the residents in the above properties required repairs to a glass balcony which was presenting a health and safety issues. Therefore, the landlord required scaffolding to be erected to comply with its repair obligation to repair the structure and exterior of the property. The erection of the scaffolding was required in these circumstances and was not an unreasonable action.
11. However, the resident should have been notified the scaffolding would be going up outside her property, as per the landlord’s repairs policy. This states the landlord should give residents reasonable notice if it needs to inspect or carry out work on a neighbouring property. The landlord should also inform the residents of when and for how long the scaffolding will be up for and inform residents of any delays. In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord did not inform the resident that scaffolding would be erected, and the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failure to do so. Whilst an apology would generally be sufficient in such cases, owing to the nature of the impact this had on the resident, the landlord should have considered offering the resident compensation to account for the distress and inconvenience caused by the sudden erection of the scaffolding. As it did not do so, an order has been made regarding this at the end of this report.
12. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident asked if the access point to the scaffold could be moved. In response to her request, the landlord contacted its contractors and queried if the repairs could have been completed from a different area of the building. However, while the landlord reasonably advised that the scaffolding could not be relocated due to the nature of the work, this was not the specific request the resident had made. Rather, the resident had asked for the access point to be changed. However, the landlord did arrange for an inspection of the scaffold. While it did not witness this itself, it informed the contractors that access was not to be gained via the resident’s balcony but via the ladder provided. This was an appropriate response and records show there did not appear to be further reports following the landlord’s intervention.
13. The resident also requested for tarpaulin to be installed around her balcony to offer her some privacy whilst the scaffolding was erected. The landlord consulted with its contractors and explored the possibility of installing tarpaulin. However, the landlord deemed it to be an unreasonable request due to there being minimal risk of debris falling during the work period, which is when tarpaulin would usually be required. The landlord also presented the resident with a reasonable alternative to her request for tarpaulin, by stating that the resident should “close the curtains” during the contractor’s visits as a means to offer her privacy. This was reasonable given the circumstances of the work being completed and the short duration that the contractors would be present on the estate.
14. In addition, the landlord was concerned about depriving the resident of natural light for an extended period of time due to the delays in the glass being available for the required repairs. The landlord advised it was unwilling to install tarpaulin and deprive the resident of natural daylight. This was a reasonable position for it to take, which sought to consider the potential impact on the resident, and the landlord appropriately explained its reasoning in correspondence with her.
15. The resident also raised concerns that the erection of the scaffolding had led to an invasion of her privacy. While it would certainly have been frustrating and inconvenient that the landlord had to erect the scaffolding, it is evident that the landlord’s actions were intended to complete repairs and not be invasive or malicious. Additionally, as noted above, the tenancy agreement requires the landlord to complete repairs to the external balconies of all residents. Given that its erection was for the purpose of investigating and completing repairs, the landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with the tenancy agreement.
16. Furthermore, the landlord offered for the contractor to contact the resident when work was scheduled to take place on the site. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take as it would have pre-warned the resident that contractors would be present and allow her to adjust her routine if she felt it necessary. Therefore, the landlord offered a reasonable solution in an attempt to remedy the resident’s concerns about an invasion of her privacy.
17. The resident also raised concerns about the health and safety of the scaffolding. The resident believed the scaffolding breached health and safety regulations due to a lack of safe means of access to the scaffolding. As above, the landlord attended the estate and observed the safety of the site and deemed it to not be in violation of any health and safety regulations. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the contractors were in breach of any health and safety regulations, meaning there was no action to be taken in regard to the safety.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

18. In her complaint, the resident raised concerns that contractors were using her balcony in order to access the scaffolding and requested the access point be relocated. However, in its responses, the landlord appears to have at times misunderstood the resident’s complaint.
19. Its stage one response did address the matter of where contractors accessed the scaffold, noting it had carried out an inspection following the resident’s complaint and confirmed contractors should “bring a ladder” with them when they required access to the scaffold. However, it also confused matters by going on to address whether the scaffold could be resited – and concluding it could not be – which was not the concern the resident had raised. It repeated this in its stage two response, despite the resident reiterating in her escalation request that she had not asked for the scaffold itself to be resited but for the access point to be moved.
20. This investigation has not seen evidence that the resident’s complaint was “brushed off”. However, in both its complaint responses, the landlord did not specifically address whether it was possible to move the access point to the scaffold. This was not appropriate and as a result meant the landlord failed to fully address the complaint, which evidently caused the resident frustration. This was a service failure. If the landlord had paid more careful attention to the wording of the resident’s complaint, and her subsequent correspondence, it may have been able to prevent the complaint from escalating and the resident feeling that her complaint had not been fully addressed.
21. There was also an initial delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint, which she originally submitted on 2 May 2022, before following-up on 17 May 2022 as she had not received a response. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 May 2022, 15 working days later. This was not appropriate, and, in its complaint responses, the landlord has not acknowledged the initial delay in actioning the complaint, or the time and trouble she was caused as a result.
22. Once it acknowledged the complaint, the landlord acted reasonably by keeping her updated on the progress of its stage one response, emailing her on 7 June 2022 to advise it was waiting for feedback from the inspection of the scaffold before it could provide a full response. The stage one response was eventually provided on 22 June 2022, eleven working days later. While the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that responses should not be delayed by more than an additional 10 working days, this was only just outside that timeframe and would have caused minimal detriment. In its stage one response, the landlord appropriately reiterated the reasons why it was delayed and offered an apology.
23. Overall, considering the delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint, and the confusion over the specific aspect of the concerns raised, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s request for access to scaffolding to be relocated.
    2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Order

25. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation, consisting of:
    1. £50 in recognition of its failure to notify the resident that scaffolding would be erected around her property; and
    2. £50 in recognition of identified failures with its complaint handling.
26. The compensation should be paid within four weeks of this report and the landlord should provide this Service with evidence of its compliance with the order.

Recommendation

27. The landlord should review its procedures for notifying residents when scaffolding is erected on its properties, to ensure all residents who may be affected are given fair notice of any scheduled works.