Peabody Trust (202301179)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301179

Peabody Trust

30 August 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the property being affected by draught and cold.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced in July 2022. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives in the property with her 4 children.
4. The resident reported issues with the property being cold and on 20 January 2023 the landlord arranged for a heat loss survey to take place on 26 January 2023. The resident said that due to the cold property, herself and her children experienced chest infections. On 9 February 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that a heat loss survey of the property was cancelled by its contractor 3 times.
5. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 17 April 2023. The landlord detailed that its contractors had booked appointments on 26 January 2023, then rescheduled 3 more times until they attended on 16 February 2023. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by the appointments being cancelled by its contractors. The heat loss survey conducted on 16 February 2023 found the radiators and heating systems were working fine.
6. However, in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it noted there was draught entering the property, a follow-up appointment was made for 23 February 2023. The landlord’s contractor had fixed the window handles and fitted foam to prevent draughts. The landlord confirmed to the resident the windows did not need to be repaired. The windows would be due for renewal in 3 years as part of a cyclical programme. The landlord also said it provided feedback to its contractors to learn from the complaint. It offered £60 in compensation to the resident for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
7. The resident called the landlord the same day and explained why she was unhappy with its response. The resident said:
   1. The cyclical works were too far away (3 years).
   2. She was worried the same issue with draught and cold would arise.
   3. She was unhappy with the repairs carried out by its contractors. The windows were not double glazed.
   4. The landlord’s communication and complaint handling was poor, and she had to chase the landlord.
   5. The level of compensation offered was insufficient.
   6. She disputed the outcome of the heat loss survey. The radiator in the kitchen made the room too hot and felt this radiator could be relocated.
8. Following the conversation with the resident, the landlord revised its offer of £60 to £110 in an email on 17 April 2024. This took into consideration poor complaint handling. The landlord also said it would arrange for the contractor’s supervisor to visit the property and assess if any further works were required. The landlord told the resident that if she did not want to accept the next steps and compensation, to let it know and it would escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaint procedure. On 4 May 2023 the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s revised response and confirmed she wanted to escalate her complaint.
9. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 21 June 2023. It apologised for the delay in registering and responding to the resident’s initial complaint, as well as the delays since she escalated her complaint. The landlord reiterated its findings in the stage 1 complaint response. It said it arranged for a surveyor to attend the property on 8 June 2023, who found no issues with the windows and doors. It told the resident if she was apprehensive about any cold and draught in the winter months, to contact it and re-assess the property.
10. Additionally, in the landlord’s final response it told the resident that the kitchen radiator could not be removed, as the kitchen required heating. It suggested she used the radiator controls to put the heating on a lower setting. It said it would arrange for a contractor to visit and complete the repair. It provided details of its insurance team as the resident said she and her family’s health was affected. It said it was making improvements in its complaint handling from March 2023. It offered £300 in compensation, comprised of:
    1. £150 for the missed appointments, time, trouble, and inconvenience experienced.
    2. £150 for the landlord’s complaint handling made up:
       1. £25 for the delay in registering the stage 1 complaint response.
       2. £75 for the delay in responding at stage 1 of its internal complaint procedure.
       3. £25 for the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint.
       4. £25 for the delay in issuing the final response.
11. On the same day as the landlord’s final response, the resident referred her complaint to this Service. She wanted us to investigate her concerns as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and complaint outcome.
12. The landlord confirmed to this Service that it had repaired the radiator controls on 31 January 2024. No further works were outstanding after an inspection of the property on 26 February 2024, but it was to propose to the resident that it could install draught excluders.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

13. It is noted the resident said that due to the draught and cold, her health and her family’s health was affected. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot confirm the effect of the landlord’s actions or inaction on the resident’s health and the resident may wish to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the draught and cold issues caused the resident.

Landlord’s policies and obligations

14. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places statutory obligations on the landlord. The landlord is to keep in repair and proper working order, the installations in the property that supply heating and hot water. The landlord is also obliged to repair and keep in good condition the structure and exterior of the property, which would include external doors and windows. This is mirrored in the tenancy agreement.
15. The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. It aims to complete non-urgent repairs in 28 calendar days.
16. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for it to pay £10 in compensation to residents for missed appointments by its contractors. It also considers compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience, as well as complaint handling failures. There is compensation considered for poor complaint handling.
17. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy stated there were 2 stages to its complaints process. At stage 1 it would acknowledge complaints in 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it would respond in 20 working days. Extensions to the complaint response deadline could be mutually agreed.

Draught and cold

18. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles, which are:
    1. Be fair, treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
19. In considering this, the Ombudsman will not find maladministration or service failure 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.
20. The landlord admitted failings with its initial inspection of the property. Appointments of 26 January 2023, 31 January 2023, and 7 February 2023 for the heat loss survey were cancelled by its contractors. These cancellations were inconvenient to the resident as sufficient notice was not provided. The landlord described these cancellations as ‘last minute’ and acknowledged its error. It also provided feedback to the contractor to improve future service delivery, which was reasonable action.
21. The heat loss survey of 16 February 2023 found no issues with the radiators or heating systems. Instead, the landlord’s contractor believed the cold was potentially due to draught. Follow-on works were raised for 23 February 2023, which was appropriate, and the timeliness was in line with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy. The contractor completed fixing the window handles and applying foam to prevent draughts. The contractor told the landlord that repairs to the window was not required. Although the resident was unhappy that her windows were not double glazed, the landlord relies on professional opinion, therefore it is not reasonable to expect it to conduct repairs to the windows when its contractor had not deemed it necessary.
22. Following the resident’s escalation of 4 May 2023, a further inspection by the landlord’s surveyor happened on 8 June 2023. This appointment exceeded the timescales within the landlord’s responsive repairs policy by 7 calendar days, albeit there were 2 bank holidays between this period. The surveyor found no issues with the windows and doors. Therefore, at that stage, aside from the delayed inspection, the landlord had taken appropriate action by arranging an inspection and listening to professional opinion.
23. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move the kitchen radiator was reasonable. It explained that this was not possible as the kitchen required adequate heating. It also advised about the controls. However, it committed to arranging a contractor’s attendance to repair the controls, to allow the radiator to operate at a lower setting. Ultimately, this did not take place until 31 January 2024, as confirmed by the landlord. This repair was more than 7 months, which far exceeded the timescales set out in its responsive repairs policy. No justification has been provided to this Service for the delay, there is also no evidence that it kept the resident updated during this period about the status of this repair. This was not appropriate by the landlord and a service failing.
24. Additionally, the landlord acknowledged and told her the draught issue may need to be assessed again should she experience further issues in winter months. The resident had maintained to this Service that the substantive issue was not resolved. There is evidence submitted by the landlord that the resident told it on 9 November 2023, due to the change in weather, there were issues with draught and cold in the property again. There was a further report on 19 February 2024, after which it inspected the property again on 26 February 2024. The inspection found no issues with the property, but it agreed it could instruct its contractor to install draught excluders. Although this was reasonable, it was offered outside the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
25. It is understood that the landlord said it was difficult to assess draught and cold in the property in the summer months. However, the landlord made a commitment to the resident that it would assess the property again if the issue arose. There has been no evidence provided it communicated clearly with the resident and kept her updated from her initial report in November 2023. Therefore, the landlord unreasonably failed to manage her expectations. This also meant it took 109 calendar days from her November 2023 report for it to re-confirm there were no issues with the structure of the property. In terms of timeliness, this exceeded the responsive repairs policy, which was unreasonable.
26. Overall, it was clear the landlord attempted to put things right. It acknowledged its failures, delays, and relied on professional opinion. It also demonstrated it learned from outcomes by liaising with its contracts and providing feedback to improve its service delivery. However, the landlord made commitments in its final response that it did honour, but with delays and ineffective communication with the resident. Had the landlord acted sooner and appropriately with its responsive repairs policy, this Service would have found reasonable redress. Given the circumstances, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the property being affected by draught and cold. Orders have been made that take into consideration the detriment to the resident.
27. Under the landlord’s compensation policy, consideration is given for time, trouble, and inconvenience. In its final response the total award for these aspects amounted to £150. As the landlord delayed to complete commitments made in its final response, the offer was not proportionate to the inconvenience experienced by the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy suggests a £200 payment for time, trouble, and inconvenience can be made in circumstances where there has been some detriment. The compensation policy also allows for £10 per missed contractor visit. As such, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to offer £230 for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience, including the missed visits.

Complaint handling

28. The landlord had apportioned £150 of its total offer of £300 to complaint handling. Therefore, this Service will concentrate on whether the landlord has offered fair compensation for its complaint handling.
29. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its internal complaints procedure. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords are expected to acknowledge residents’ complaints in 5 working days. Therefore, it was inappropriate the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint.
30. The stage 1 complaint response was issued 46 working days after the resident first complained. This was not appropriate as it exceeded the timescales of 10 working days set out in the landlord’s complaints policy by 36 working days. In the landlord’s final response, it acknowledged its delays to respond to the resident both at stage 1 and stage 2 of its internal complaint procedure.
31. It is also noted that the landlord attempted to resolve the complaint at stage 1, and proactively revised its offer when the resident said she was unhappy with the response. Ultimately, the resident wanted to escalate her complaint and she confirmed this on 4 May 2023. The landlord had agreed 2 extensions with her, with a response to be provided by 20 June 2023. The landlord’s final response would be issued 1-day over the final extension it agreed; however, it said it mistyped 20 June 2023. It is clear from the evidence the resident expected a response by 20 June 2023. This is not reasonable as the landlord had the opportunity to clarify to the resident when it would issue its final response.
32. The landlord’s compensation policy says payments from £50 to £150 would be considered for ‘moderate’ failure in its complaint handling. The landlord’s offer of £150 was proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident, considering the delays and inconvenience caused. This award is also in line with what the Ombudsman would expect under the Service’ remedies guidance.
33. Overall, the landlord apologised and acknowledged its complaint handling failures. It offered appropriate compensation. It said it was revising its complaint handling from March 2023 with a higher intake of staff to respond to complaints, to be in line with the expected timescales. Therefore, it demonstrated learning. No other failures have been identified by this Service. As such, this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. The finding of reasonable redress is subject to the compensation of £150 being paid to resident.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the property being affected by draught and cold.
35. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman considers the landlord had made an offer of reasonable redress for its complaint handling, which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

36. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for its failings identified in this report. It is to include, if not done so already, confirmation in writing whether the resident wants to proceed with the installation of draught excluders at the property.
    2. Pay directly to the resident’s bank account a total of £230 in compensation for the missed appointments, as well as time, trouble, and inconvenience. For the avoidance of doubt, this is £80 more than it offered in its stage 2 complaint response. If any of the £150 previously offered (excluding complaint handling) had been paid, this can be deducted from the total of £230.
    3. Complete a case review to find how the delays occurred which resulted in the heating controls not being repaired until January 2024. This is to ensure measures are put in place to avoid such delays in the future.
37. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendation

38. In line with the above finding of reasonable redress, if the landlord has not paid the £150 compensation for complaint handling to the resident already, the landlord is recommended to re-offer and pay the £150 compensation directly to the resident’s bank account.