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

Peabody Trust (202218532)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218532

Peabody Trust

21 December 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of rats in her loft.
    2. Repairs to the resident’s loft and the renewal of the loft insulation.
    3. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives at the property with her 2 children and there are no recorded vulnerabilities. The resident says her son was affected by the Grenfell Tower fire and had to receive counselling.
  2. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property, installations for water, electricity, gas, and heating, in compliance with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Its repairs policy categorises repairs as either emergency or routine. It will respond to emergency repairs, where there is a risk to persons or property, within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours. It will aim to complete routine repairs within 10 working days, and when it cannot it will inform the resident of the timescale and keep them informed of progress.
  3. The landlord also has a pest control policy. Under this the landlord will inspect and carry out pest control where there is the risk the problem may spread to other properties in a block, the infestation was caused by its failure to carry out repairs, or where the infestation is within a communal area such as a roof space. The policy says the landlord can contract with a pest control contractor to carry out these works.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days by telephone and will respond within 10 working days. If the landlord cannot meet this deadline, it will explain this to the resident and confirm when it will be able to provide its response. If the resident is not satisfied, they can ask to escalate their complaint to stage 2. Stage 2 complaints are investigated by an independent manager who will respond within 10 working days. The policy says if the resident remains dissatisfied, they can contact this Service.
  5. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. The landlord should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).
  6. The landlord has a compensation policy which states that it will consider compensation for service failure on a “case by case basis making sure that payments made are fair, appropriate and in line with statutory requirements.” The landlord may compensate for loss of amenity, reimburse for damage or unreasonable costs incurred by the resident, or offer discretionary compensation.

Summary of events

  1. On 27 April 2022 the resident called the landlord to report having rats in her loft. She said she could hear them running about and they had damaged some items in the loft. The landlord’s record says it requested to send pest control. The resident called the landlord again on 29 April 2022 to ask for someone to remove a dead rat from her loft. On 3 May 2022 the resident called the landlord again to chase for pest control. The landlord’s record says it called the pest control contractor, which said it had booked an appointment for 12 May 2022.
  2. The resident called the landlord on 30 June 2022 and said that the pest control contractor had attended, but would not block up holes so the landlord needed to arrange ‘proofing’ repairs to fill the holes. She also said the insulation in her loft had been damaged by the rats. The landlord’s record states that it requested pest control again and arranged for proofing works on 28 July 2022. The pest control contractor attended on 15 August 2022, 7 September 2022, and 22 September 2022. Its job sheets note that no bait was taken and no dead rats found.
  3. On 13 October 2022 the landlord raised a job for the insulation to be removed and for the loft to be cleaned and re-baited. The pest control contractor attended on 1 November 2022 to carry out these works. On 16 November 2022 the pest control contractor attended again and recommended further proofing works.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 16 November 2022 by completing the landlord’s online complaints form. Her complaint was about:
    1. Still having rats in the loft after reporting this in April 2022.
    2. There still being holes in the roof which had not been filled.
    3. The landlord ignoring her and not keeping her updated.
    4. There being no insulation in the loft, which was making the property cold and causing her to use more heating. All her items from the loft were having to be stored within the property, which was causing inconvenience for her and her children, and she felt this was unsafe and a fire hazard.
    5. Wanting the rats gone and the holes filled, so that the insulation and her items could be put back into the loft.
  5. The pest control contractor attended on 25 November 2022 and reported that no bait had been taken and no activity, possibly due to the cold conditions in the loft.
  6. On 2 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge her complaint. It apologised for its late response and said it would start to investigate. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 December 2022 and said she was still waiting for it to contact her regarding the proofing work. She said she had been waiting since July 2022 and the insulation could not be put back until the holes were filled. The resident emailed the landlord again on 8 and 12 December 2022 to chase for a response to her complaint and to have the works completed. She said the property was cold without the insulation and her daughter was ill.
  7. The pest control contractor attended on 16 December 2022. It said no bait had been taken and there was no evidence of rats. It recommended that the insulation be put back and said it was its final visit to the property.
  8. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman emailed the landlord requesting a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 21 December 2022, 20 January 2023 and 5 February 2023. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response on 6 February 2023, in which it:
    1. Defined the complaint as “Finding rats and droppings in your loft. You called in April 2022 and you are still experiencing the same problem. You explained colleagues you have previously had communications with have not been replying to you.”
    2. Said there were multiple holes around the block which rats could use, and it had booked an inspection for that day to obtain a quote for the works.
    3. Provided a named member of staff who it said would communicate with the resident and keep her updated about the repairs.
    4. Offered £100 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble, and £50 compensation for its late response.
    5. Explained how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  9. On 15 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said that while repairs were then being done, it was 11 months since she first reported the issue. She said the compensation offered did not even cover her additional heating costs incurred due to not having insulation in the loft over the winter. She also said it did not compensate for the inconvenience of having to store items from the loft in the property which restricted their use of the property, her daughter being ill, and having had to take time off from work. She also said the experience had affected her son’s mental health.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord again on 7 and 22 March 2023 to chase for a stage 2 response and to ask for the insulation to be put back into the loft. Following a further request from the resident, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord for a stage 2 response on 22 March 2023.
  11. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 29 March 2023 it:
    1. Noted that the resident was dissatisfied as works from the stage 1 response had not been completed and the compensation offered did not reflect the impact the failing had had on her.
    2. Apologised for its failure and accepted it had not completed repairs within a reasonable time and had not kept her updated.
    3. Had booked an appointment to put insulation back into the loft on 3 April 2023.
    4. Said it had reviewed its procedures with “increasing emphasis on training and recruitment” and was carrying out “a comprehensive, group-wide review along with a systematic audit approach to learning lessons from complaints”.
    5. Explained that its policy allowed for a maximum of £600 compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience, which it was offering. It also offered the maximum for complaints handling of £250. The landlord offered a further discretionary £550 being £50 for each of the 11 months the issue was ongoing. The total compensation offered was £1,400.
    6. Said how to contact this Service if the resident remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 3 April 2023 and said that the contractor was not able to put insulation into the loft that day. She said he did not have enough insulation and did not realise how big the job was. She also said the landlord had not considered loss of enjoyment of the property within its compensation offer.
  2. The contractor replaced the loft insulation on 6 April 2023 and the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the work had been completed on 13 April 2023. It also said the resident was able to contact this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint. On 3 July 2023 the resident accepted the landlord’s stage 2 compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rats in her loft

  1. When the resident reported rats in her loft on 27 April 2022 the landlord accepted that it was responsible for resolving the issue under its pest control policy and recommended contracting a pest control contractor. It is not clear how the pest control contractor managed its appointments, but it made one without telling the resident, which was poor practice.
  2. However, when the resident chased the landlord on 3 May 2022 the landlord contacted the contractor and then told the resident when the appointment was booked for, which was 10 working days after she reported the issue. This was a reasonable period of time and mirrored the landlord’s timeframe for a routine repair under its repairs policy, as detailed above. Although the landlord has not provided a record the resident confirmed that the pest control contractor attended.
  3. The landlord arranged for the pest control contractor to attend a further 7 times between August and December 2022, and it confirmed throughout that there was no activity, bait taken, or dead rats present in the loft. The landlord, via its pest control contractor, had resolved the rat infestation promptly. As a result, there was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s loft and the renewal of the loft insulation

  1. The resident told the landlord on 30 June 2022 that the pest control contractor had said there were holes in the roof or loft. It is not known whether the contractor reported this back to the landlord itself as no record has been provided by the landlord. However, from this date the landlord was aware of the proofing work needed. Its record states that it requested proofing works on 28 July 2022 but there is no record of the repair being raised, which it would have been helpful to have had. The pest control contractor recommended proofing works again on 16 November 2022, and it is presumed that no proofing works had been completed by this date, which led to the resident making her complaint.
  2. In its stage 1 response the landlord accepted that it had not carried out the proofing works and had arranged to inspect and complete these. The resident confirmed it had done this on 15 February 2023. It had, therefore, taken the landlord 7 and a half months to complete the proofing works, against a routine repair timeframe under its policy of 10 working days, which was an unreasonable delay.
  3. The stage 1 response also referred to needing scaffolding, which may have ordinarily been a good reason for the repair taking longer than 10 working days. However, it had failed to communicate with the resident or explain how long the works would take from the start until its stage 1 response. The landlord accepted that it had failed to complete the repairs within a reasonable time in its stage 2 response.
  4. As the landlord failed to complete the proofing works within a reasonable time the resident was left without loft insulation from 1 November 2022 until 6 April 2023, a period of just over 5 months over the winter period.
  5. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered £600 compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience, and a further £550 in discretionary compensation, totalling £1,150 for failings in repairs and replacing the loft insulation.
  6. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  7. The landlord promptly reinsulated the loft following its stage 2 response, accepted its failings, said it was improving its learning from complaints and offered compensation. It is not clear from its policy that it had a maximum amount which it could offer, as its compensation policy states it considers compensation on a “case by case” basis. However, the amount offered was reasonable and reflected the inconvenience and additional heating costs the resident would have incurred. As a result, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of this part of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The resident made a complaint on 16 November 2022 using the landlord’s online complaints form. Under its complaints policy the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 2 working days by telephone, but there is no evidence it did this. It did acknowledge the complaint by email, but this was 12 working days later, outside of its response timeframe of 10 working days under its policy and the Code, and that was a failing. It apologised for the delay but also failed to give a reason, or an anticipated response date.
  2. The resident chased the landlord 3 times for a response before contacting this Service. The Ombudsman then asked the landlord to provide its response a further 3 times, before it replied and said it needed an extension, providing its response the following day. This was 56 working days after the complaint was made, which represents an unacceptable delay and was in breach of both its policy and the Code.
  3. Within its stage 1 response the landlord failed to apologise for the delay or to give a reason. While it did offer £50 compensation for its service failure this was wholly inadequate, and the landlord failed to say how it would prevent similar delays in future.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint within the timeframe set out under the landlord’s policy. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint. The resident then had to chase the landlord twice, and the Ombudsman also had to write to the landlord again, before it provided its stage 2 response on 29 March 2023. The landlord took 31 working days to provide its response, outside of its 10-working days timeframe under its policy and 20 working days allowed for under the Code. This was a further failing. It did apologise for the delay, as well as say what steps it was taking to prevent further delays in future which was positive.
  5. The landlord offered £250 compensation for its complaints handling failures. It said this was the maximum allowed under its policy, however, there are no maximum figures included within its compensation policy provided to the Ombudsman. Taking into account the delays to both its stage 1 and 2 responses, that the resident and the Ombudsman had to chase the landlord, and that the delay in the responses delayed the resolution of the substantive repair issues, there was maladministration. An order has been made that the landlord pay a further £150 in compensation to reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s loft and the renewal of the loft insulation.
  3. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rats in her loft.

Reasons

  1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as it delayed in providing both of its responses for an unreasonable amount of time, in excess of timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. It failed to explain the reason for the delays or to offer appropriate compensation.
  2. There was reasonable redress in relation to its handling of repairs to the resident’s loft and the renewal of the loft insulation as it accepted its failings. It put things right and offered reasonable compensation.
  3. There was no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of rats in her loft as it accepted responsibility for this and arranged appropriate pest control. Its contractor resolved the pest problem promptly.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for its complaints handling failures.
    2. Pay directly to the resident further compensation of £150 to reflect the impact on the resident of its complaints handling failures.
    3. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord include a section on proofing works within its pest control policy, detailing who is responsible and timeframes for completion of these works as part of a programme of pest control.