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

Peabody Trust (202223341)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223341

Peabody Trust

06 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Report of no water supply to his property.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the property. The resident’s father acts as an advocate for the resident in communication with the landlord, due to the resident’s vulnerabilities connected to his mental health. For ease of reference, both the resident and his father will be referred to as the resident throughout this report.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord via email on 23 September 2022 to advise of the issue of no water supply to the property. The landlord arranged for its operative to attend, who advised that they had been unable to turn the water on. The operative advised they were going to reattend to attempt to reinstate the water supply. The operative revisited on 12 October 2022 and noted that there was a water at the property boundary, so the issue was between the mains supply and the property, advising it may be a blockage. The operative noted they could not find the stopcock and asked the landlord for information on where this was located.
  3. On 27 October 2022, the landlord rearranged an appointment with the resident for a surveyor to attend due to staff illness. This was rearranged for 16 November 2022. The landlord noted that the resident had been staying with family for a number of months and had advised that he could not return to the property due to no water supply.
  4. The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord on 8 December 2022 the landlord issued its stage one response on 14 December 2022. The landlord advised the resident that.
    1. The landlord advised that the water supplier would need to investigate the lack of water supply as the meter may have been removed or not installed in the first place.
    2. It suggested the resident contacted the water provider, and the landlord may be able to assist depending on what the water supplier advised.
    3. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and reiterated the resident should contact the water supplier.
  5. The landlord’s internal communication on 16 December 2022 noted that the resident was not currently staying at the property but was currently in hospital. The resident had advised that he was unable to return to the address while there was no active water supply. The landlord’s notes from 29 December 2022 further advised that it had spoken to the resident, and he confirmed he had spoken to the water supplier, but he was unable to provide any written reports regarding the removal of any water meter. The landlord advised it had told the resident to contact the water supplier again.
  6. The resident responded to the landlord’s stage one complaint response via email on 29 December 2022. The resident advised that the landlord’s investigation in its stage one response was flawed, incomplete and was not a true reflection of the chronology of the water supply being removed from the property. The resident advised this had made the property uninhabitable. The resident advised:
    1. The water supplier had confirmed that it had not cut off the water supply and the resident did not have a water meter and was billed quarterly. The water supplier advised that it was illegal for it to cut off a mains water supply to any household.
    2. The landlord arranged a second plumber to attend the resident’s property on 12 October 2022 who confirmed that there was a water supply to the building as far as the boundary, and the issue from there may have been a blockage.
  7. The resident advised that he continued to report this issue to the landlord to attempt to get this matter resolved without any success. The resident advised that no one had access to the flat from the time that he had left the property 9 months before.
  8. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 complaint response on 31 March 2023. the landlord advised:
    1. The meter is owned and supplied by the water supplier, and it would be the responsibility of the water supplier to install, remove and manage the meter. It reiterated the resident must contact the water supplier directly to investigate this.
    2. The landlord advised it could not resolve the issue as there was no meter present at the property.
    3. The landlord advised its actions had been reasonable and fair and there had been no fault with its service.
    4. The landlord acknowledged it had failed to provide a complaint response in a reasonable timeframe and offered the resident £100 compensation.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord’s CEO via email on 5 September 2023 advising that the issue had still not been resolved. The resident advised the landlord had failed to consider the comments of its plumber in both the stage one and stage 2 complaint responses, and that the responsibility of the water supplier ends at the boundary of the property. The resident requested that the landlord looked into this matter again. The landlord responded to this initially on 14 September 2022 reiterating its previous comments that it was not responsible for the water meter.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord again on both 19 September 2023 and 25 September 2023. The resident advised the landlord had failed to give a credible explanation to why having no water meter was related to him having no water supply to the property. He advised that he knew of another resident without a water meter in the building who had a water supply to their property. The resident advised the landlord’s stance was not credible and that this should have been resolved a year ago.
  11. On 25 September 2022, the resident advised that it was 20 days since he had emailed the CEO directly and he was still awaiting a response to this, which was causing him distress.
  12. The resident confirmed to this Service on 23 November 2023 that this matter remained unresolved and there was still not an active water supply to the property. The resident confirmed that he had been awaiting further update from the landlord’s surveyor who had attended the property that week. The resident is seeking a full refund of the rent during this period as the property had been left uninhabitable, further compensation from the landlord for the distress caused by this, and a formal apology from the landlord regarding the impact this had on him.

 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The Ombudsman was sorry to learn of the mental and physical impact this matter has had on the resident. This service does not doubt the resident’s comments about their health; however, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether this was directly affected by the landlord’s action or inaction. Often when there is a dispute over whether a health issue had been caused or made worse by negligence, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. Without that evidence, this Service is not able to draw any conclusion on whether the resident’s health has been affected by the way in which the landlord had handled his reports concerning the water supply. It is however the role of this Service to assess how the landlord responded to the reports made by the resident regarding how this was affecting his health and wellbeing, whether its response was reasonable and proportionate in all circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman can also review whether the landlord followed its own policies and procedures, the law and industry best practice.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says.
    1. Non-urgent repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days.
    2. Emergency repairs will be completed within 4 hours during working hours.
    3. Specialist works that require specialist contractors or technical leaders in diagnosing the repairs will be completed within 60 days.
  2. It further states that the landlord may consider carrying out some repairs as a higher priority where the resident or someone in the household is known to the landlord as vulnerable or needing assistance. The landlord is responsible for the supply of safe water in relation to ensuring that pipework, sinks, taps, baths, and showers are in working order.
  3. The landlord’s vulnerable persons policy states that if a resident is assessed as being vulnerable it will use this information where possible to deliver services to meet their individual needs.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states that a total loss of mains water (where it is landlord’s responsibility) after the first 24 hours, if we have not provided alternative provisions, for example, bottled water, the resident will be compensated £5 per day.

 

The resident’s reports of no water supply to the property

  1. The resident had made the landlord aware of the lack of water supply on 23 September 2022, with the landlord arranging for an operative to attend on 28 September 2022 to further investigate this issue. This operative attended but was unable to address the issue. The landlord then arranged a further operative to attend on 12 October 2022 to attempt to address this. This was reasonable from the landlord. It had responded to the issue in line with the timescales in its repairs policy and conducted a follow up visit within a reasonable timeframe to attempt to address this matter. The landlord had maintained contact with the resident during this time.
  2. The operative that attended on 12 October 2022 established that the issue with the water supply was not an issue with the water supplier, as there was a water supply up to the boundary of the property. The operative advised that they felt that there had been an issue with a potential blockage between the boundary and the resident’s property. In both its stage one, stage 2 and subsequent contact with the resident, the landlord had failed to refer to this. The landlord advised that the resident needed to contact the water supplier to establish the cause of the lack of supply and if it had removed the resident’s meter. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acted on the information from its own operative that the issue was not connected to the water supplier, this was within the landlord’s responsibility and should have been investigated as such. By not doing this, the landlord had left a vulnerable resident for over 12 months without a water supply to his property. During this time, the resident spent a period in hospital, as well as living with family. This caused unreasonable distress, anxiety and upset for the resident.
  3. The resident had indicated to the landlord on both 29 December 2022 and 5 September 2023 that he had spoken to the water supplier, which had confirmed that it had not removed a water meter or disconnected his water supply. The landlord continued to reiterate that the resident needed to speak to the water supplier in order to resolve this matter. This was unreasonable from the landlord. The resident had clearly demonstrated it had acted on the landlord’s advice which had been unsuccessful in resolving the issue. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have communicated directly with the water supplier in an attempt to further identify the issue and take a cooperative approach in resolving this matter. This may have allowed the landlord to address this issue in a much quicker timeframe. This was a missed opportunity from the landlord, and by not doing this, it had caused further distress and anxiety for the resident.
  4. There had been a period from the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 31 March 2023 up until September 2023 where there had been no evidence of communication from the resident or the landlord regarding this matter. While the resident may have not been in contact, it is clear that the landlord had been made aware of this situation from 23 September 2022, and should have reasonably continued to investigate the causes behind the resident’s property having no water supply to attempt to address this. It had failed to do this, which was unreasonable. There was no indication that the landlord had considered other resolutions for the resident, such as decant (temporary move) from the property until this matter had been resolved.
  5. In Ombudsman’s view, additional compensation based on a rent reduction is appropriate as there was no active water supply to the resident’s property, meaning that the property was uninhabitable, so the resident had been forced to live away from the address for a prolonged period, without the landlord offering alternative accommodation. The landlord should offer compensation for loss of enjoyment of his home as 100% of the rent from the date when the resident first reported that there was no water supply on 23 September 2022 up until the water supply is reconnected, or the date when it arranges alternative accommodation for the resident.
  6. The landlord had failed to adequately acknowledge the resident’s concerns, vulnerabilities and the potential health and safety risk associated with this issue. It is clear from the landlord’s own internal communication that it had been aware that the resident had vulnerabilities and had spent a period in hospital as a result of this and following this spent time living with family. This demonstrated that the landlord had been aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and should have considered this within the communication it had with the resident, as well as the action it was taking regarding the lack of water supply to the property.
  7. Due to this there is a finding of severe maladministration by the landlord. In line with this service’s remedies guidelines, the landlord should offer compensation of £1000 to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. The remedies guidance which sets out this Service’s approach to compensation (published on our website) suggests awards in this range are appropriate where there have been serious failings by the landlord, and there had been a single significant failure in service or a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident, with this situation still not being resolved.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. New complaints are logged within 5 working days at stage one, and a response will be issued within 10 working days, unless an extension is notified and agreed with the complainant. When a resident is not satisfied with the outcome of the stage one complaint, this can be escalated to stage 2 within 10 days of receiving the stage one response. A stage 2 response will be issued within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised his formal complaint on 8 December 2022, with the landlord providing a formal response to this on 14 December 2022. This was reasonable from the landlord. It responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy and within timeframes set out in this Service’s published complaint handling code (the Code). The Code sets out a framework to support complaint handling and landlords are expected to adhere to this framework.
  3. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response on 29 December 2022. The landlord should have logged and escalated this complaint from this date. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 31 March 2023, referring to the resident escalating his complaint on 8 February 2023. Evidence provided does not show an escalation of the complaint from the resident on this date and therefore it is not clear why the landlord referred to it. This suggests poor record keeping by the landlord as it was not aware of when the complaint was escalated when issuing its final response.
  4. From the resident expressing dissatisfaction with the stage one response on 29 December 2022 and the landlord issuing its stage 2 response on 31 March 2023, there were 65 working days. This fell out of the landlord’s complaint handling policy, and what the Ombudsman would consider acceptable timeframes, in line with the Code. This is an unreasonable timeframe, which meant the resident had to wait an extended period for a final response and also prevented the resident from being able to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman sooner as he had to wait for the final response before, we could investigate his complaint.
  5. In its stage 2 response, the landlord had failed to consider the resident’s comments regarding communication with their water supplier and comments made by the landlord’s own contractor regarding the water supply being present up to the boundary. In line with the Code, landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. The landlord had failed to do this, which was unreasonable and caused further confusion for the resident.
  6. Due to this, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling. While it had offered £100 compensation for the delay in issuing the resident’s stage 2 complaint, this offer does not go far enough, as it had not acknowledged its failing to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint, which would have caused confusion, distress and also further delays in the issue being resolved. Due to this, the landlord should pay the resident a further £100 compensation for its failure in its complaint handling, bringing the total up to £200 for this aspect of the resident’s complaint. In line with the remedies guidance, referenced above, awards of this amount are made where the landlord had made an offer of compensation, but it did not reflect the detriment to the resident and/or is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of having no water supply to the property.
  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. The landlord is ordered to issue a rent rebate for the period from 23 September 2022 to date as compensation based on loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home. This is broken down as:
    1. 23 September 2022 – 31 March 2023 is 25 weeks at £123.01 totalling £3075.25.
    2. 1 April 2023 – 6 December 2023 is 35 weeks at £131.11 totalling £4588.85.
    3. The total to be repaid being £7664.10.
  2. The landlord should continue to offer a rent rebate until the water is reinstated at the property or the resident is offered alternative accommodation.
  3. Pay the resident a total of £1200 compensation. This is broken down as the following:
    1. £1000 for the landlord’s poor communication, failure to acknowledge the impact on the resident and delays in works being progressed.
    2. £200 for the landlord’s failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint. £100 should be deducted if it had already been paid as part of the stage 2 complaint response.
  4. The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing for the failure to acknowledge the impact the lack of water supply had on him the poor communication and the delays in works being progressed. This apology should come from the Chief Executive of the landlord.
  5. The landlord needs to reinstate the water supply to the resident’s property within 2 weeks, this may involve liaising with the water supplier. The landlord should keep the resident updated with progress until the issue is resolved.
  6. The landlord is to confirm to this service that it has complied with the above orders within 5 weeks of this report.
  7. The landlord should complete a case review regarding this matter at director level or above. This should focus on the landlord’s approach to handling a loss of water supply to a vulnerable resident’s property. The review should focus on areas for improvement and the landlord should provide a written report on its findings to the Ombudsman and the resident detailing points of learning and the steps it will take to prevent similar issues from occurring in the future.
  8. The landlord is to confirm to this service that it has complied with the above order within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure that offers further rent rebate to the resident until the water supply is reinstated at the resident’s property.