The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Peabody Trust (202214122)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214122

Peabody Trust

31 January 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 concerns about the condition of the property when he moved in and its decision not to undertake any further work.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant. He moved into the property in November 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the second floor. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the landlord’s records.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property, including ceilings and water pipes. The resident is responsible for carrying out minor repairs.
  3. The resident contacted his councillor on 19 April 2022. He said he was shocked at the state the property was left in by the previous resident and he had reported his concerns to the landlord. He asked the landlord to remove the asbestos water tank that was in the bathroom cupboard and which was obsolete. The landlord telephoned the resident in response to the councillor enquiry.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 May 2022 and reported damp in his bathroom cupboard. He also said there was a bad smell coming from the cupboard ceiling. A repair was ordered the same day to investigate a leak. The landlord confirmed on 30 May 2022 there was a leak in the bathroom cupboard and this could be causing the smell. It said there was no mould and arranged for a plumber to attend on 1 June 2022. The leak was repaired on the same day.
  5. The resident complained on 28 July 2022. He said there was damp on the bathroom ceiling and the concrete was spalling. He said the damp and damage to the ceiling were in the bathroom cupboard and were there when he moved in. He asked the landlord to confirm whether the flat was safe to live in and to remove the damp. He also asked the landlord if there was anything that could be done to fix the concrete ceiling and pipes in the bathroom cupboard.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 August 2022. It said its contractor fixed the leak on 1 June 2022 and the odour was eliminated. It also said it would not remove the water tank. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated the same day. He said the property was not safe to live in and the ceiling should have been repaired before he moved in. The landlord confirmed on 17 August 2022 that it was not prepared to alter its decision and confirmed the property was habitable.
  7. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 7 September 2022. It said it had a limited budget and had to make a distinction between repairs that were required to make a property habitable from works considered to be an improvement. The resident’s request to remove the water tank was classified as an improvement. It also said the property was habitable. It told the resident he could arrange for the water tank to be removed at his own cost, but he would need approval first. It confirmed on 13 September 2022 that it would not repair the ceiling in the bathroom cupboard. It also said the odour would diminish overtime.
  8. The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 12 November 2022. He said there was extensive damp on the bathroom ceiling and the concrete ceiling was spalling. He also said the property was uninhabitable and the landlord should have rectified the problems before he moved in. He wanted to know if the bathroom ceiling could be repaired and if so, for the landlord to do the work.

 Assessment and findings

The resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when he moved in and its decision not to undertake any further work.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property, including ceilings. There is, however, no reference to repairing damaged ceilings or removing obsolete items in the landlord’s empty property lettable standard. It is not clear from the housing records whether the landlord checked the ceiling and water tank when the property was empty. It would have been reasonable for it to have done this and assessed whether it had any repairing obligations under the tenancy agreement.
  2. Whilst the tenancy sign-up checklist was signed by the resident and confirms he was made aware of both the landlord and his responsibilities for repairs, it is not clear whether the lettable standard or the schedule of completed works was shared with the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this. This would have helped manage the resident’s expectations and ensured there was no confusion. It was appropriate for the landlord to give the resident an information leaflet on asbestos during the tenancy sign up interview.
  3. The resident expressed concerns about the condition of the property in April 2022 to his councillor. Whilst these concerns were acknowledged by the landlord at the time, no record of its telephone call with the resident was provided to this Service. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps landlords ensure they meet their repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. The landlord should review its record keeping arrangements in the context of the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight review on knowledge and information management.
  4. It was appropriate for the landlord to visit the resident’s home on 30 May 2022 to check for evidence of damp and mould in the property. Whilst the housing records confirm a mould wash was not required, there is no evidence it told the resident there was no damp or mould in the property. Neither is there any evidence it confirmed the position regarding the water tank or ceiling at this point. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this given the concerns the resident had previously raised. This would have helped manage the resident’s expectations.
  5. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm it did not consider the bathroom cupboard to be a habitable area and to say the property was habitable in its final complaint response. It was also appropriate for the landlord to say it would not remove the water tank, but the resident could do so subject to him seeking permission first and paying the costs. This was in accordance with the landlord’s tenant improvements policy.
  6. In summary, the landlord’s actions were reasonable and fair in the circumstances. It did inspect the ceiling and told the resident the bathroom cupboard was not a habitable space. It also confirmed the position regarding the water tank and told him the property was habitable. This Service has seen no evidence to dispute the conclusions reached by the landlord.
  7. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Maladministration can include a landlord’s failure to follow its own policies or procedures, unreasonable delays in dealing with a matter and dealing with a matter unfairly. In this instance, there was no maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when he moved in or its refusal to undertake any further work.

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

  1. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to confirm in its stage 1 complaint response that it would not remove the water tank, it did not address the resident’s complaint about the ceiling or damp. Neither did it confirm the property was safe to live in. This was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. This says landlords should address all the points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions it makes. This was a failing in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when he moved in or its refusal to undertake any further work.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £50 compensation directly to the resident. This is in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

  1. Review its record keeping practices, with particular reference to the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information spotlight review.