Peabody Trust (202214787)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214787

Peabody Trust

5 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 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

The complaint is about the resident’s concerns regarding the level of compensation offered by the landlord following reports of defects at the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The landlord is a housing association. The resident, with her partner, are secure tenants of the landlord. The tenancy started on 28 August 2020. The property is a 2-bedroom flat with garden. The resident is disabled and advised she finds it difficult communicating in English.
For the purposes of this investigation, this Service will refer to the resident or her advocate as the resident.
On 23 June 2021, the resident raised a complaint about her experience of moving home to the landlord. She said she felt pressured to move into the property as her previous home was part of a regeneration project. From her understanding, the landlord was to have completed repairs within 6 months of moving into the property. She said the front wall and garden wall, which separated her property with the neighbour’s property, were knocked down and broken. Due to this, she stated there was a lack of privacy and security. She had made unsuccessful attempts to speak to the landlord about this and was unhappy with the lack of contact.
The resident complained of internal defects and stated there were cracks and mould on the walls. She said that pictures were taken by the landlord’s contractors but no action to repair the cracks and mould in the property had been taken. She mentioned difficulty communicating in English and being disabled. The resident stated she wanted the following as a resolution:
1. to have collected bricks loosely laying on the wall which are a hazard to the resident and her family
2. arranged a date it would fix the external walls
3. the cracks in the walls to be replastered
4. treated mould within the property
5. for it to have explained the lack of diversity inclusion
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 5 January 2022. It apologised to her for the delay in responding and upheld her complaint. It said that its contractors attended the property on 8 July 2021 to inspect the external walls. Specialist contractors were required for these repairs and it formulated an action plan on 27 October 2021. The works were then authorised by the landlord.
A member of the landlord’s staff also inspected the cracks and mould within the property on 8 July 2021. It found hairline cracks which it did not consider in need of repair or maintenance, rather that it was a decorative issue. It had found damp issues in the living room. In the complaint response, it said an inspection would be made within 10 working days. It also apologised for the delays in repairs. It attributed this to nationwide shortages in labour and materials. It said it wanted to ensure that repeat occurrences did not happen again and was working with its repairs team to implement changes within its services. This included weekly meetings with its repairs department.
Additionally, within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 5 January 2022, it commented that it had no difficulty in communicating with the resident. It said her son was an authorised party on the complaint and had been sending emails on her behalf. It informed her about its customer services team for any requests on verbal or written communication. It offered a total of £500 in financial compensation for the failings it had identified, which were as follows:
1. for the length of time taken to repair external walls – £100
2. length of time taken to arrange a damp survey – £100
3. the distress and inconvenience caused by the broken wall not being made safe – £100
4. the complaint handling of stage 1 complaint – £100
5. right to repair external wall – £50
6. right to repair damp in living room – £50

The landlord also mentioned that it would be sharing feedback with its relevant departments to improve its services. It provided 21 days for the resident to respond to its complaint response.

The landlord provided a second stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint of 23 June 2021. This was sent via email on 27 January 2022. It upheld her complaint and offered £500 in financial compensation. It had asked for confirmation on appointments and availability, as it needed access to complete works.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 responses and sought to escalate her complaint on 28 January 2022. The landlord asked her to elaborate on what she was unhappy with and the outcomes she was seeking. The resident emailed the landlord on 16 May 2022 outlining her reasons to escalate the complaint. She stated:
1. works were advised to be completed in March 2022, but had not been
2. she had not been able to make use of her garden
3. she also raised that individuals from the landlord’s contractors had urinated on the property twice
4. a letter from the landlord dated 13 May 2022 was hand delivered on the day that works were meant to start, so the resident had no prior notice
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 25 May 2022 and the landlord acknowledged her complaint escalation the following day.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response letter on 1 July 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It said it wanted to take accountability where things had gone wrong and learn from these issues in order to improve its service. In its findings, it explained it did not keep to the repairs timescales it committed to when the resident moved into the property, but this had been identified in its stage 1 response. It further added that it should not have sent out 2 separate stage 1 complaint responses, as this was confusing. Especially in light of the resident advising there was a language barrier.
Further findings in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was that it did not have evidence of contractor’s urinating, but flowers were provided as a gesture of goodwill. It provided feedback to management and had spoken to its contractors about on-site behaviour.
The most suitable solution for the property was to replace the historic garden wall with part brick and part fencing. The historic wall had no suitable foundation, so a like-for-like replacement was not a possibility. However, this form of action had been agreed with the resident on 4 May 2022. It also stated it needed access to the property so its contractors could complete works. It would then clear the garden.
At stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint response, it proposed to the resident to agree a date to complete works, then clear the site. It offered a total of £1,500 in compensation, made up of:
1. the 2 previous complaint responses at stage 1 – which awarded a combined £1,000
2. a further £500 for any confusion caused by not treating the resident’s complaint under 1 complaint response and for the additional issues raised
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response. She felt she had not been able to make use of the garden since she moved into the property. She had tried to improve the garden but it had been difficult due to poorly planned works by the landlord. At that stage, she had asked for it to match the fencing that was to be installed. And for it to increase the total compensation awarded to £2,500. If this was not possible, for it to remove debris in the garden, have topsoil applied and pave the area.
The landlord responded to the resident on 6 October 2022. It confirmed the same style of fencing would be ordered to meet her request. It noted it was hard to source a similar type of fence and unable to determine when this would be. Additionally, after internal management discussions, it offered the resident £2,000. It said the offer would not be increased further.
The resident remained dissatisfied and referred her complaint to this Service on 8 October 2022. She detailed that within 6 months of her moving into the property, the landlord should have actioned the following:
1. replaced rotten timber windows
2. replaced front and rear garden walls – erected rear garden fencing
3. cleared all garden debris

To put things right, the resident sought £2,500 in compensation so she could pay to pave the garden area and remove the debris. Since then, the resident confirmed the fencing had been erected. The landlord confirmed the damp works were completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says we may not consider complaints which have been made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. Although the resident was unhappy about the length of time taken to replace timber windows, there is no evidence that this matter has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, this will not form part of this investigation.

Policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is expected to keep external decorations and the exterior of the premises, including any common parts in a reasonable state of decoration as required.
The resident is required to keep the interior of the property in a good and clean condition. Additionally, minor repairs are the responsibility of the resident, which includes small plaster cracks. There is also a requirement to keep the garden tidy.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states:
1. specialist works – are complex in nature and require a specialist contractor or technical lead, will be completed within 60 calendar days
2. works that require additional time fall under programmed repairs and are to be completed within 60 calendar days
3. It gives reasonable notice if it needs to get into the home to inspect, or to carry out work to a home or a neighbouring property.
The landlord operates a compensation policy. Within this, it says discretionary compensation may be awarded for the following:
1. the length of time it has taken it to resolve the problem
2. any difficulties a resident has had in pursuing their issue
3. disruption to the household
4. any additional costs incurred.
The landlord has a dedicated complaints policy. It commits to acknowledging and logging complaints within 5 working days at stage 1 of its process. A response should be provided in 10 days. It should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. An extension can be agreed by the parties. At stage 2 of its complaints process, complaints will be acknowledged 5 working days following receipt of escalation. A response will be provided 20 working days from the day it was escalated. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. An extension at stage 2 can be agreed by both parties.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord following the resident’s reports of defects

The Ombudsman will not find maladministration for when the landlord had provided reasonable redress. The Ombudsman expects it to have done so within its internal complaints process. This encourages earlier resolution to complaints. However, it is possible for it to take further action after it sent its final response. In this case, after its stage 2 complaint response, the resident had asked the landlord to consider increasing its offer of compensation to £2,500 and to match the fencing. The landlord agreed to match the fencing and increase its offer from £1,500 to £2,000 on 6 October 2022. This was prior to the complaint being duly made to this Service and therefore this revised compensation offer will be considered in the assessment.
From the evidence provided it did not include events and reports leading up to the resident’s complaint. From the information about the circumstances of the complaint, it was not disputed that:
1. the landlord was responsible for repairs to the external walls
2. the landlord was responsible to address damp and mould within the property
3. the landlord failed to complete repairs in a timely manner
This Service expects a landlord to consider the practicality of undertaking works, and the impact that such works could have on the resident occupying the property. There is a lack of evidence to show any reports prior to June 2021 that the extent and severity of the issue with the external walls were known by it. The same applies for the response to the reported damp conditions within the property.
By 8 July 2021, an inspection of the external walls of the property was carried out by the landlord. It determined that specialist contractors were required. Outlined in its responsive repairs policy, this type of work is to be completed within 60 calendar days. However, the landlord’s records show that by 4 July 2022, only one fence panel had been fitted. It is not clear as to what had caused this significant delay. In its stage 2 complaint response, it committed to arranging mutually agreed dates to carry out the outstanding repairs. Also, the resident had requested matching fence panels on 1 July 2022. It is reasonable that this may have caused further delays, but showed the landlord was listening and responding to the resident’s requests. However, prior to the resident’s request to match the fence panels, the landlord far exceeded its 60-day commitment with no clear evidence or explanation of any mitigation. This would have caused significant impact on the resident, as it had identified this to be a safety hazard. The resident would have been further inconvenienced by debris left in the garden.
From the information provided the landlord further exceeded the timescale it committed to for the treatment of damp works. It inspected the resident’s property on 8 July 2021 and said a damp survey was required, but the cracks were a decorative issue. The cracks were minor repairs and are the resident’s obligation under the tenancy agreement. Focusing on the damp that was identified, the exact date of damp treatment is unknown. The landlord’s records show that it had carried out the works and this aspect is not disputed by both parties. In any event, the latest the landlord ought to have completed this by was 60 calendar days. The landlord’s records indicate that it was November 2021 that damp works had taken place. This was outside of agreed timescales, however as the repairs record keeping was poor, it is difficult to say whether this was appropriate.
In the landlord’s complaint responses, it was positive that it had acknowledged its failures and demonstrated learning. Although the resident experienced issues for a prolonged period, it displayed a willingness to put right the detriment she had experienced.
In the landlord’s own final response, it agreed to match the fencing. This meant it had gone above what was required of it under the tenancy agreement and its legal obligations. Although there is no doubt the resident had limited use of the garden during the affected period, the landlord is not required to pave the garden or make the improvements sought by her. Therefore, it would be unreasonable for it to expect it do so. There is no evidence to show that it applied its discretion and agreed to this part of the request, outside its policy position. The purpose of compensation is to put right any detriment and evidenced loss experienced by the resident resulting from the failures exhibited by the landlord. The landlord did so by the compensation it awarded.
It is unclear as to how much of the £2,000 offered by the landlord was for the failings identified and its complaint handling approach. From the evidence received, the additional £500 it offered at stage 2 of its complaints process mostly attributed to the complaint handling, but this was not defined clearly. It also awarded £100 for complaint handling in its stage 1 complaint response. The £500 increase of 6 October 2022 was for the lack of garden use. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says awards of above £1,000 is merited for significant long-term impact. This includes when a landlord’s response to the failures exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord and resident relationship. Although this Service is unaware of the proportion of redress offered for the handling of the reports of defects, the £2,000 offered overall is in line with our remedies guidance. The offer was also made in accordance with its discretionary element of its compensation policy. Therefore, level of redress was appropriate as the landlord had attempted to recover its position and put things right with the resident.
Therefore, while the resident was left without the use of her garden and experienced an unreasonable and excessive length of time for repairs, the landlord made efforts to put right its failures. It apologised, took learnings from the failures it identified, offered compensation, offered to match the fencing and in turn to have completed the repairs. The level of compensation offered encompassed the impact on her and was fair in the circumstances of the complaint. As such, this Service makes a finding of reasonable redress, as the landlord made an offer which proportionately recognised the failings it exhibited.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident’s initial complaint on 23 June 2021 was acknowledged by the landlord on 25 June 2021. It committed to providing a response by 8 July 2021. The first stage 1 response was issued 5 January 2022. This meant that 137 working days had passed since it produced a response. Although there was communication between both parties in this time period, there has been no evidence sent to this Service that an extension was agreed. The Ombudsman expects for landlords to not unreasonably delay complaint responses. Although there were works being scheduled during this time, it is not clear from the evidence provided that the resident was updated about the complaints process by the landlord.
As above, a second stage 1 response was provided on 27 January 2022. This Service has not been provided a copy of this stage 1 response. Therefore, we cannot see the breakdown of the £500 compensation offered. In its final response, it acknowledged it was an error on its part to send another stage 1 response. It also honoured the full compensation made in the second stage 1 response. It recognised the confusion caused by this and awarded a further £500. It was appropriate that the landlord recognised its failing, apologised and offered redress.
The landlord’s records show the resident escalated her complaint on 28 January 2022. Its complaints policy details that residents have 10 days after the stage 1 response to request escalation. Although the landlord asked for elaboration on what outcomes she sought, it was aware of her escalation request. The following are reasons stated in its complaints policy as to why it would not progress complaint escalations:
1. where the reason for escalation is unrelated to the original complaint
2. the escalation request was not submitted by the deadline set
3. appeals relating to insurance claims

Despite this, there has been no commentary provided as to why it did not escalate her complaint. Additionally, it only decided to chase the resident for a response on 5 May 2022 to provide the reasons for wanting her complaint escalated. This was 67 working days since the escalation request. The Ombudsman expects a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. Failing to do so, caused further delays to the residents complaint journey.

On 16 May 2022, the resident had outlined the reasons as to why she wanted to escalate her complaint. This was not acknowledged by the landlord until 8 working days later. This was slightly outside its 5 working day commitment. The landlord committed to providing its stage 2 response by 24 June 2022. It advised that as its member of staff was absent, that it would send its stage 2 complaint response on 1 July 2022 instead, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
As highlighted previously, this Service is unaware as to how much of the £2,000 offered by the landlord attributed its complaint handling failures. It had recognised and apologised for long delays in the process and that it had sent 2 versions of its stage 1 response. Despite this, its stage 2 complaint response overlooked the complaint handling failures related to the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint from 28 January 2022 until 25 May 2022. The landlord should have been more proactive and communicated clearly with the resident, learning from its previous failings. The stage 2 complaint acknowledgement was also outside the expected timescales and it should have taken into consideration these failures in its response.
As the landlord omitted to escalate the complaint in a timely manner, it caused additional delays and inconvenience to the resident. She may have got an earlier opportunity for resolution by progressing the issues internally or eventually to the Ombudsman. Hence, this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The orders include additional compensation in respect of the latter complaint handling failures and the landlord’s failure to address these in its final response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the resident’s concerns regarding the level of compensation offered by the landlord following reports of defects at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £2,000 it previously offered, if it has not done so already.
3. Pay £100 for the further complaint handling failures identified in this report.
Provide this Service evidence of compliance of the above orders.

Recommendation

It is also recommended the landlord review and self asses with the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023.