Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Peabody Trust (202212355)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212355

Peabody Trust

6 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and his subsequent request for compensation.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a third floor flat in a block of flats.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould on 7 October 2021. The landlord conducted a visual inspection of the property on 14 October 2021, agreeing that damp and mould was present within the property, but that further inspection was required to identify the source. A further inspection to the property took place on 19 November 2021, in which the operative believed the roof to be the source of the water causing the damp and mould. The operative confirmed that the lounge ceiling and walls had water damage, as well as damp and mould, and defects to the external brickwork (pointing) of the building.
  3. There is no evidence of further activity until the landlord’s operative attempted another survey, unsuccessfully, on 2 February 2022. The landlord subsequently made alternative arrangements to erect scaffolding to allow an inspection. Its operatives tried to attend the property on 11 February 2022, but were unable to do so due to traffic restrictions. Although the exact date as to when the resident first raised a complaint is not known, the landlord escalated his complaint to its complaints process on 4 March 2022, due to the repairs remaining outstanding. The resident explained in his complaint that he was struggling to sleep at night and suffered respiratory issues due to the damp and mould.
  4. The landlord wrote back to the resident on 7 March 2022. It explained that it was treating his complaint informally, that it was seeking updates from the contractors, and that it would be in touch with the resident “soon”.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response, as he felt he had been forced to endure these conditions in the property since his tenancy began. He requested compensation as he attributed the decline of his respiratory health to the damp and mould within the property. He also informed the landlord on 9 March 2022 that a surveyor attended the property to take photos, to begin the works. He requested that the landlord prioritise these repairs.
  6. The landlord informed the resident on 11 and 14 March 2022 that it would need to obtain and approve a quote before works could proceed. The resident requested an update on 15 March 2022, to which the landlord replied the same day stating that it could only consider compensation once the repairs were completed and that it would book in the repairs once a quote had been approved. The landlord apologised to the resident on 18 March 2022, stating that it was waiting to obtain a secondary quote, and that this had caused delays to the repairs. It confirmed that a dehumidifier had been supplied to the resident on 23 March 2022.
  7. The landlord has provided a roof inspection report dated 19 April 2022. It confirmed there was water damage to the resident‘s living room walls and ceiling, and plaster damage to the external pointing. It believed this was due to rainwater entering the property from the roof. It supplied a cherry picker machine to gain access to the roof, and scaffolding was erected on 23 May 2022 allowing repairs to begin. Its records show that the roof repairs were completed on 27 June 2022.
  8. The resident has said that he previously had a contractor attend to remove the wall coverings and complete a mould wash (though the date of this has not been provided). He reported on 4 July 2022 that the landlord’s operative was unable to complete the plaster repairs as the walls were still damp. The landlord responded on 8 July 2022 saying that it was still chasing its contractor to repair the external pointing. It completed the internal repairs to the property on 15 July 2022, ensuring that waterproof plaster was installed and the walls re-painted.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 July 2022 regarding the outcome for his complaint. He requested an estimated completion for the external pointing repairs and wished for the landlord to consider his compensation. He was unhappy that he was forced to endure such poor conditions and requested 35% of his rent as compensation. He further chased this on 26 July 2022, as operatives were on site. The landlord replied on 1 August 2022 stating that it had escalated his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. The resident said the following day that the issue had caused his physical and mental health to decline.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 August 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delays in the roof repairs. It admitted there were delays in arranging the scaffolding, which it attributed to the decline of repair quotes on multiple occasions. It provided a timeline of events, and offered £528 compensation for its failings. It said it would and had conducted staff training regarding communication and repair timeframes. It stated that it did not hold a record of the resident reporting the damp and mould before 6 October 2021. It broke down the compensation as:
    1. £228 for dehumidifier use. Calculated at £2 per day for 114 days.
    2. £300 for time, trouble and inconvenience caused by repair delays.
  11. The resident escalated his complaint and brought his complaint to the attention of this Service on 4 August 2022, as he felt the offer of compensation was too low. He also raised concerns that the compensation would come off his rent arrears and not be paid directly to him. He informed this service on 9 September 2022 that he made a claim for his damaged possessions and detriment to his health.
  12. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 16 September 2022, upholding the resident’s complaint. It explained why it would not offer the rent rebate the resident had asked for, but increased its compensation to £628. It also explained it was in the process of reviewing its policies and procedures, particularly its complaints procedure to only include a two-stage complaints process, and that some of the delays were unavoidable due to follow-on appointments required by skilled operatives.
  13. Having exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the resident requested his complaint be investigated by this service. He sought further compensation of 25% of the rent he had paid. He also asked the Ombudsman to consider his photo evidence of his home’s condition.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In his communications to both this service and the landlord, the resident has said that he had been reporting damp and mould since the start of his tenancy in November 2019. However, no evidence of such reports has been received, and the first report for which there is evidence was in June 2020. There was then no further reports until October 2021, followed by the resident’s complaint in March 2022. The Ombudsman may only investigate complaints which have been raised as formal complaints with a landlord within a reasonable time frame of the events giving rise to the complaint, usually considered to be six months. Because of that, this investigation focuses on the resident’s reports in late 2021, and his complaint in 2022.
  2. The resident told us that the reason for the lack of evidence about his early repair reports may be because the landlord changed its case management system at some point, and that the old records were not easily accessible from the new system. That may well be true, however without any evidence at all from either the resident or landlord, this investigation cannot consider the earlier period. Furthermore, the important date is when the formal complaint was made to the landlord (as opposed to repair reports), which does not appear to be disputed.
  3. The resident attributed a decline in his health to the damp and mould within the property. The Ombudsman is not able to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on physical health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if he considers that his health has been affected by the landlord’s actions, or lack thereof. That is a legal process, and the resident should seek independent advice should he wish to pursue this option. This report does not seek to determine whether the landlord’s actions or inaction have affected the resident’s health.
  4. As part of his evidence the resident provided photos of his property. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence, as it is not possible for us to determine the validity of the location, circumstances, or plausibility of the images themselves. As a result, we do not generally place any significant reliance on photographs when reaching a determination.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy lists potential causes, including: defective components on the roof, doors, windows, water drainage systems and leaking internal or communal water pipes. It is to investigate all reports of damp, mould and condensation within the resident’s home and carry out and complete any necessary repairs or adjustments that would help to rectify the issue.
  2. In accordance with its repairs policy, the landlord is responsible to repair or make good any damp caused by building defects such as rising damp, and any damages this has caused, including the removal of damp and mould growth. It states that programmed repairs, such as roofing repairs that require scaffolding, are to be completed within 60 calendar days.
  3. In accordance with its compensation policy, it pays £2 per day per de-humidifier that had been provided to contribute towards a resident’s increased electricity use.

The response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and his subsequent request for compensation

  1. It is not disputed by either party that the landlord was responsible to carry out the repairs to both the roof and the resident’s living room ceiling and walls from water damage following a leak and looking to treat the resulting damp and mould.
  2. It is clear that there were delays in both the inspection of the roof to assess the necessary works required to resolve the leak, as well as the repairs to the roof itself. From the evidence provided, the landlord attributed these delays to the large repair quotes it received from its subcontractors regarding the cost to repair the building’s roof, and due to unexplained delays and poor communication from its sub-contractors in erecting the scaffolding. Furthermore, it was clear that the landlord’s operatives were unable to progress the resident’s internal repairs to his living room ceiling and walls until the roof repairs were compete.
  3. Conversely, this was clearly a complicated issue requiring multiple inspections to clarify the source of the problem, the need for scaffolding, multiple types of contractors, and a wide range of repair and remedial work. Apart from an unexplained period of approximately three months around Christmas 2021, the evidence shows some form of activity in relation to resolving the damp and mould each month from when it was reported in October 2021 to its final completion. The landlord ultimately completed repairs to the roof of the building, treating the damp and mould within the property, and repaired the water damages caused by the leak to the resident’s living room ceilings and walls. It implemented preventative measures in the form of a wall injection to help reduce the humidity levels within the property’s walls and applied waterproof plaster to help stop water from re-entering the brickwork. The time taken was arguably at least in large part due to the scale and nature of the work, rather than clear failings by the landlord.
  4. Nonetheless, there were periods of inactivity, and it is also not apparent if the landlord provided reasonable updates and other communication with the resident. When failings are identified, The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put matters right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (the Principles); be fair, put things right and learn from the outcomes.
  5. In this case, the landlord put matters right by apologising, acknowledging the long and lengthy period needed to complete the work, and offered £628 compensation, of which £400 was for inconvenience, time and trouble. It also explained how it had subsequently improved its repair and complaints processes and services following the resident’s experiences, which, while not directly benefiting the resident, were remedies and outcomes the Ombudsman would expect to see in circumstances like these. Overall, the landlord appropriately addressed its failings through its complaint responses, which were in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and the Principles.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the compensation offered by the landlord and said he was seeking a percentage of the rent he had paid. In its complaint responses the landlord explained that such a significant level of compensation would usually be paid in circumstances when a home, or at least part of it, was verifiably uninhabitable, and it did not agree the resident’s home met that criteria. The landlord’s explanation was in line with its compensation policy. Nothing in the evidence seen for this investigation undermines the landlord’s decision on this matter.
  7. The compensation offered by the landlord was clearly a lot lower than that being sought by the resident. However, he based his request on both what he saw as personal injury from the damp and mould, and for the period since the start of his tenancy. As was explained above, these factors cannot be considered in this investigation. The resident would be better placed considering legal action against the landlord if believes his health has been damaged by its actions, or any inaction he perceives. Within the specific bounds of what this investigation is considering, the compensation offered was broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  8. The resident told the landlord he was concerned that the compensation he received would be offset against any rent arrears he might have. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that that is its approach, and so it would be entitled to take such action. However, it should be noted that the Ombudsman would usually not consider such an action reasonable if any rent arrears were because of errors by a landlord, or because of matters outside a tenant’s control. Also, if part of a compensation offer constitutes reimbursement for costs incurred by a tenant (such as the dehumidifier running costs in this case), then that money should be paid direct to the tenant. The landlord should keep these guidelines in mind when making its decision how to pay any compensation to a tenant.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should now pay the resident the compensation offered in its final complaint response. It should also keep in mind the guidelines mentioned above when deciding how to make the payment.