Peabody Trust (202210109)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210109

Peabody Trust

15 February 2024

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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the property above.
   2. The resident’s request to be rehoused.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 2-bedroom, second floor flat. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the landlord’s records. The resident in the flat above is also a tenant of the same landlord.
3. The resident reported leaks from the flat above over a number of years. The landlord undertook repairs to the balconies in the flats above, but the resident continued to experience leaks.
4. The resident made a complaint on 13 July 2022. He said the property was unsafe and the landlord had not taken his reports of disrepair seriously. He said there was mould in the bathroom and the damage was caused by an ongoing leak from the flat above. He also said the kitchen light was disconnected and he was unable to cook. The resident asked to be moved as his wife was pregnant and they already had a small child.
5. The landlord repaired the leak on 15 July 2022 after forcing entry into the flat above. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same day and said its repairs team would confirm whether his property was habitable. His request to be rehoused was referred to the landlord’s rehousing team.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 19 July 2022. It said it had tried to contact his neighbour on numerous occasions and had forced entry after seeking legal advice. It also said it had arranged an appointment with his neighbour and would issue a formal warning on 21 July 2022. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve the matter and noted that it had made referrals to support agencies.
7. The resident told the landlord on 20 July 2022 that his wife and son had moved out of the property. He said his neighbour was causing the leaks on purpose. He asked for his complaint to be escalated on 27 July 2022. He said his property had been flooded five times in the last two years and the landlord had not addressed the issues he raised in his complaint. Further leaks were reported on 12 August 2022 and 26 August 2022. The resident told the landlord his kitchen light was still not working on 7 September 2022.
8. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 24 September 2022. It said:
   1. It took action following reports of a leak on 29 December 2020. This included undertaking remedial works to 2 balconies.
   2. It had no record of the resident’s report of a leak from the flat above in April 2021. The leak was, however, identified by a caretaker on 5 May 2021 and traced to his neighbour’s property. The leak was fixed the following day.
   3. It could not give the resident a guarantee that further leaks would not occur. This was because leaks could be caused by things that were outside its control.
   4. There were delays in progressing repairs and responding to the resident’s complaint. The repairs may have been actioned earlier had closer monitoring taken place.
   5. It would consider partially or fully paying the excess on the resident’s home insurance. It also said it would offer £145 compensation; £100 for the time and trouble for having to pursue the leaks to the balcony and £45 for its poor complaints handling.
9. The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 11 October 2022. He said his property had been flooded 7 times in the last two years. He believed the leaks were caused by his neighbour and the landlord had not done enough to address this. He said he feared for his family’s safety and wanted his landlord to rehouse him.

Post complaint events.

10. The resident reported a further leak on 14 October 2022. He said the kitchen was flooded and the landlord had failed to complete the repairs in a safe way. He said water was coming through the light fittings and the ceiling was bulging. The landlord attended on 17 October 2022 and could find no evidence of a leak. It noted, however, a smell of mould in the bathroom.
11. The offer of compensation was declined by the resident. He contacted his councillor on 28 October 2022. He told them he felt unsafe and had to move his family out of the property because of the ongoing leaks. He also said he wanted to be rehoused, but his request was declined by the landlord.
12. The resident decided he did not want to move into a property he was offered on 19 December 2022 due to financial difficulties.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the property above.

13. The landlord has a duty to carry out repairs and works in accordance with the tenancy agreement. It also has an obligation to ensure it complies with the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
14. Whilst reasonable timescales are not defined in law, the potential health risks from damp and mould are significant. It is this Service’s view that landlords should take urgent action following reports of damp and mould. They should also undertake a self-assessment against this Service’s spotlight review on damp and mould.
15. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine what works were ordered and when the repairs were completed. What is evident is that the landlord was placed on notice about the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in his property from May 2021 onwards.
16. It is not disputed that the resident’s property was affected by a leak from the flat above in 2021, although the resident and landlord have different views on when and how this was reported. The landlord said the leak was detected on 5 May 2021 by a caretaker, although it has not provided this Service with any information confirming this. The housing records make reference to undertaking repairs to the kitchen ceiling and carrying out a mould wash in the bathroom, but it is unclear when these jobs were raised or when they were completed. There is also no evidence it monitored the situation regarding the damp and mould. This was not appropriate or in accordance with its damp and mould policy. This says it will monitor the work it carries out for a year. The landlord’s failure to monitor the situation also meant it did not meet its obligations under HHSRS.
17. It is unclear from the housing records what action was taken by the landlord following a further leak on 13 July 2022. Whilst the kitchen light was made safe, there is no evidence when this was done or whether the landlord complied with the targets in its repairs policy. There is no evidence the landlord arranged for the light fitting to be reinstated at this point. This meant the landlord did not meet its obligations under the tenancy agreement or its repairs policy. There is no evidence the landlord acted on the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bathroom when he reported the leak on 13 July 2022.
18. The housing records confirm the leak from the flat above was resolved on 15 July 2022 after the landlord forced entry. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with an update and to confirm what steps it was taking to ensure his property was safe given the concerns he raised. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have confirmed whether it was dealing with the matter as an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case, as requested by him. The landlord’s failure to do this meant it did not assess the vulnerabilities of the resident, ensure appropriate support was provided or identify any risks or safeguarding issues. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will do this.
19. It was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident on 10 August 2022 that all the outstanding works would be completed, although it is unclear from the housing records what these were and when they would be done. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for someone to carry out an inspection of the property following the resident’s claims of water damage on 11 August 2022.
20. It is unclear from the housing records what action the landlord took following reports of further leaks on 12 August 2022 and 26 August 2022. It is evident the landlord did undertake work, but it is unclear what this entailed or when the repairs were completed. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for the hallway to be inspected on 1 September 2022, but again it is unclear what repairs were identified and undertaken. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for the kitchen light to be reconnected on12 September 2022, the 2 month delay was not appropriate and meant the landlord did not meet its obligations under the tenancy agreement. It also meant the resident was unable to cook and was one of the reasons why his pregnant wife and child moved out. This evidently caused the resident significant distress.
21. In summary, whilst this Service acknowledges the difficulties the landlord had gaining access to the property above, there is no evidence to confirm its response was reasonable and in accordance with its repairs policy and ASB policy. It did not monitor the position regarding the damp and mould and left the resident without lighting in the kitchen for over 2 months. Its communication with the resident was also poor at times, as was its record keeping. It was appropriate for the landlord to set out the steps it was taking to avoid a recurrence in its final complaint response, including the establishment of a new team to monitor existing repairs through to completion. There is, however, no evidence the landlord put things right for the resident.
22. It is evident the situation had a detrimental impact on the resident, who described himself as being at ‘‘his wits end.’’ The landlord was aware of this and the impact the situation was having on him and his family. The offer of £100 compensation for the delays in resolving the leaks was not reasonable or fair in the circumstances given the failures identified in this report. In this instance, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the property above.

The resident’s request to be rehoused.

23. It is not this Service’s role to determine whether a resident should be rehoused. We have, however, investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing and whether it acted fairly, reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
24. The landlord’s rehousing policy says it will assess an applicant’s circumstances to determine whether they fall into one of its priority bands for internal transfers. Whilst the housing records provided are minimal and lacking detail, it is evident the landlord referred the resident’s request for rehousing made on 13 July 2022 to its rehousing team on 18 July 2022. It is also evident it provided the resident with information about his rehousing options. This was appropriate.
25. There is no evidence the landlord assessed the resident’s rehousing banding following his claim of overcrowding. Neither is there any evidence it responded to the further requests he made between July 2022 and September 2022. Whilst it is acknowledged the landlord will not always have available housing stock in a resident’s areas of choice, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have responded to these requests. By not doing this, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations.
26. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered if  a permanent or temporary (decant) move was required, given the ongoing leaks and the fact that the resident was unable to bring his family home, including a newborn child. The landlord’s rehousing policy says permanent and temporary (decants) will be considered following an assessment of the property to determine if it is suitable for the resident to remain in.
27. In summary, whilst the landlord’s initial response was reasonable, it did not follow up on the resident’s reports of overcrowding and did not respond to his request for updates. The landlord’s failure to update the resident caused him inconvenience and distress. Given these failings, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

28. Whilst the landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s initial complaint in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy, it did not address his concerns about the mould in the bathroom or the report that the kitchen light was not working. Nor did it respond to his complaint about the lack of contact from the housing manager or his request to be rehoused. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. This caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing his complaint.
29. It was reasonable for the landlord to set out the steps it was taking to engage with the resident’s neighbour. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered offering compensation to the resident in accordance with its compensation guidance. This says it will consider offering compensation when a customer experiences a delay or if it fails to carry out a service.
30. The landlord’s final complaint response was not issued within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident there would be a delay, it did not issue its final complaint response by the revised deadline date. This was not appropriate and caused further distress for the resident. Again, it failed to fully address the resident’s complaint. In particular, it did not address his allegation that the landlord had done nothing to address his concerns about his neighbour or his request to be rehoused. Neither did it acknowledge the recent leaks that had occurred.
31. The overall tone of the landlord’s response lacked empathy, did not show it had considered the individual circumstances of the resident or the impact he had described. For example, the landlord referred to the leaks as an ‘unpleasant experience.’ It did not acknowledge the fact that the resident’s partner and child moved out because of the leaks or the resident was unable to cook due to the lack of lighting in the kitchen. Neither did the landlord acknowledge the resident returned to the property with a newborn baby, only to encounter a further leak. It is evident this caused the resident significant distress.
32. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm it could not guarantee there would be no further leaks and to offer to resend him information about making a liability claim through its insurers.
33. In summary, there were unreasonable delays in the handling of the resident’s complaint by the landlord. The complaint responses lacked empathy and failed to address the resident’s concerns. It is evident the resident was distressed by the situation and felt that the landlord was not listening to him. The offer of £45 compensation was not reasonable or fair in the circumstances given the failings identified in this report. Considering these failings, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the property above.
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Orders

37. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer the resident an apology for the failings set out in this report.
38. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to arrange for a qualified surveyor or damp specialist to assess the property and arrange for remedial works to be undertaken, as appropriate.
39. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £800 compensation directly to the resident, made up as follows:
    1. £600 in recognition for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his reports of leaks from the property above.
    2. £150 in recognition for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his complaint.
    3. £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his request to be rehoused.
40. Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to undertake a review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. The outcome of the review must be shared with the resident and this Service. The review must include:
    1. An exploration of why the failings identified in this investigation occurred, including its lack if consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident and his family.
    2. A review of its working practices in relation to leaks from neighbouring properties.
    3. A review of its management oversight on reports of damp and mould, with particular reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight review on damp and mould.
    4. A review of its record keeping practices, with particular reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight review on knowledge and information management.