Peabody Trust (202301587)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301587

Peabody Trust

31 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the property and the associated damage caused.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. The resident lives with her child, who is asthmatic.
The resident first raised that a leak had occurred from the flat above on 10 March 2020 which the landlord said the neighbourhood manager had addressed. The flat above is a leasehold property which the landlord does not own.
The resident then reported the leak in February 2022 and March 2022. The landlord told her to contact the managing agent to resolve the issue. Following contact from the residents MP on 15 March 2022, the landlord contacted the managing agent to pursue a repair. On 7 June 2022, the leaseholder completed the repairs and the landlord then completed remedial works in the resident’s property.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 November 2022 and 28 November 2022 as the leak had occurred again.
On 6 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to request an update. The resident said the leak occurred whenever it rained, and it had caused damage to her TV, mattress, and carpets. She explained that her daughter had asthma and the damp smell from the leak had caused an increase in chest infections and respiratory issues.
The landlord did not own the flat upstairs and therefore it had contacted the managing agent. They confirmed a visit to the property had taken place and within 6 to 8 weeks the repair would be complete.
On 17 March 2023, the landlord confirmed the leaseholder was due to complete the works to the upstairs flat imminently. The landlord said it would schedule the necessary repairs following completion of the works.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 April 2023 and said it had rained the day before and the leak had reoccurred. Due to the duration of the issue, the landlord raised a stage 1 complaint.
The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 6 June 2023, the key points were as follows:
1. It gave a history of the repair so far, saying that it would only look at the past 6 months and that it could only liaise with the managing agent for the flat rather than undertake the repair itself.
2. It said it could not comment on the health conditions of the resident’s daughter but said she could make a personal injury claim if she wished.
3. The landlord expected residents to have their own contents insurance for personal items and its compensation policy would not cover damaged items.
4. The landlord had planned a visit with both the managing agent and the landlord for the following day. The landlord would then agree a plan of action to resolve the repairs. The landlord would then complete repairs to the resident’s flat and agreed to replace the carpets.
On 7 June 2023, the joint inspection showed the works needed, to the upstairs flat, to resolve the issue. The managing agent confirmed to the landlord on 15 June 2023, that the leaseholder was aware of his obligation to expediate the repairs.
The resident requested an escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 26 June 2023 as it was over a year since she had first raised the issue and she felt the landlord was refusing to take accountability for her damaged personal belongings. She reiterated the impact on her daughter’s health and said it was “unacceptable” that she had to continue with no timescale for a resolution.
After chasing the managing agent for an update, on 18 July 2023, the landlord confirmed the leaseholder had completed the required works on 3 July 2023.
The landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 21 July 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. It did not agree with the stage 1 response where it had said it would not look at anything over 6 months old. It gave a history of the issue which the resident had first raised in 2020.
2. The resident had raised the issue again on 16 February 2022. The landlord could see it had tried to contact the resident to tell her she would need to contact the managing agent herself. It confirmed it could not see that its communication reached the resident. It considered this a service failure as the landlord had a responsibility to protect the resident and it should have proactively engaged with the managing agent.
3. The resident had made a complaint in March 2022 due to the ongoing issue and the cost of replacing ruined items. The landlord had responded to say it was not responsible and the resident would need to make an insurance claim. It accepted that was not a proactive response.
4. Following contact from the resident’s MP on 15 March 2022, the landlord contacted the managing agent. On 26 August 2022, the leaseholder completed the required works.
5. The resident contacted the landlord again on 28 November 2022 due to further leaks. The landlord confirmed the managing agent was aware and confirmed the leaseholder had scheduled works to replace the patio doors.
6. On 5 April 2023, the landlord raised works for the ceiling repairs and for the replacement of the resident’s carpet. However, on 13 April 2023 the resident reported further leaks. The leaseholder completed the repairs on 3 July 2023.
7. The landlord reiterated that it was not responsible for the repairs but accepted that it had not done enough to help resolve the issue until its repairs team got involved in April 2023.
8. It partially upheld the complaint as there had been a period when it could have done more to escalate the issue to the managing agent.
9. It would be unable to compensation for the damaged personal belongings and linked its reasoning to the compensation policy.
10. It offered compensation of £600. This was made up of £500 for time, trouble, and inconvenience and £100 for not considering matters beyond 6 months old at stage 1 of the complaints process.
In referring to this Service, the resident said she was unhappy with the level of compensation given the prolonged period that the leak went on for and the constant need for repairs, cleaning up and the disruption to her daily life and enjoyment of her home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the duration of the complaint, the resident raised the impact the leak, damp and mould had on her daughter’s asthma. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the damp and mould had an impact on the resident’s daughter, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to find a causal link between the damp and mould and the impact on the daughter’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comment in relation to this. The resident may wish to seek legal advice on this matter. The Ombudsman has considered the potential distress and inconvenience that the resident may have experienced.

Policy and procedure

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. The landlord will log new complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord will respond within 20 working days and any extension should not exceed 10 working days without good reason.
The landlords responsive repair policy states that it has an added responsibility to maintain and repair resident’s homes. Residents had a general responsibility to look after their home, report repairs and give access to undertake them.

Leak and associated damage.

Where a property that the landlord does not own, needs a repair that is affecting the resident of the landlord, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to liaise with the resident and any third parties to ensure a resolution of the issue. This can occur in different forms from offering advice, to liaising with the necessary third parties. A landlord has a duty of care towards its residents.
On 16 February 2022, the resident reported a recurring leak to the landlord. While the landlord has not provided evidence of this communication to the Ombudsman, the landlord acknowledged that it incorrectly informed the resident that she should contact the managing agent of the upstairs flat to address the problem herself. This advice was inappropriate, as the landlord had a responsibility towards the resident to resolve the issues she was facing especially as it affected its property. The landlord has appropriately recognised this oversight and acknowledged the error in its complaint response.
The resident raised the issue again on 9 March 2022 at which time she informed the landlord that she had to use buckets to collect the water and it had ruined her belongings. She also raised the impact on her daughter’s health. Given the description given by the resident that she was collecting water in a bucket, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have discussed this further with the resident and to have considered temporary solutions while awaiting a repair from the managing agent. Not doing showed a disregard to the concerns of the resident.
Furthermore, the landlord reiterated that the resident should contact the managing directly. This again was not appropriate and was a further missed opportunity for the landlord to have resolved the issue with the managing agent. The landlord’s lack of action meant the resident lived with damp and mould for a further period and caused a further delay in reaching a resolution. However, the landlord accepted that its response was not proactive, as it should have contacted the managing agent on the resident’s behalf.
It was only when the resident’s MP got involved on 15 March 2022, that the landlord contacted the managing agent to raise the issue. Landlords need to ensure they take a proactive approach to issues raised by its residents and should not take action only when an MP becomes involved. Only taking action at that stage would have frustrated the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 November 2022 and 28 November 2022 to say the earlier repairs had not worked and the leak was ongoing. The landlord appropriately contacted the resident to say it had raised the issue with the managing agent. This was the correct course of action for the landlord and showed that it was now seemingly committed to resolving the issue.
The Ombudsman recognises that landlords are not accountable for delays caused by managing agents in carrying out repairs. In situations where landlords depend on third parties for repairs, the landlord should have consistent communication with the managing agent and keep the resident informed with regular updates. Over a period of four months, the landlord showed due diligence by staying in continuous touch with both the resident and the managing agent about the repair status. This level of engagement was suitable and reflected the landlord’s dedication to addressing the resident’s concerns.
On 3 April 2023, the managing agent confirmed the repairs were complete. On 5 April 2023, the landlord raised a repair job for the ceiling repair and to replace the resident’s damaged carpet. Given the already extensive delays in the completion of the repair, it was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy to raise the repairs so swiftly and highlighted a commitment by the landlord to resolve the issues.
However, on 13 April 2023, the resident informed the landlord the leak had reoccurred. While the landlord was not responsible for the repair not resolving the issue, it did have a responsibility to the resident. This would have been a further opportunity for the landlord to have discussed some temporary solutions with the resident to ensure her home remained in a liveable condition. However, there is no evidence that this occurred. Instead, the landlord left the resident living with damp conditions again.
Further to this, the evidence shows that the landlord did not contact the managing agent to discuss the leak until 18 May 2023; over a month after the resident had raised the issue again. This is unacceptable especially given that the resident had been living with the leak for many years and her consistent concern of the impact on her daughter. Landlords need to ensure they have effective and efficient systems in place to track and monitor issues raised by residents. Not doing so delayed a resolution for the resident.
Following contact with the managing agent, the landlord took responsibility for the issue and arranged a joint visit with its repairs team and the managing agent to ensure the parties found the correct solution. Given the issue had gone on for a prolonged period, it was reasonable of the landlord to take such an approach and highlighted a renewed commitment to resolve the issue fully for its resident. Furthermore, given that this was now the third time the landlord had contacted the managing agent for a further repair, it was appropriate that it stepped up to help resolve the issue.
The joint visit took place on 7 June 2023. After the joint visit, the landlord sent a comprehensive report to the managing agent to confirm the required repairs. While the landlord did not have to do this, it was appropriate given the circumstances of the case and helped to ensure the managing agent and the leaseholder undertook the correct repairs.
Over the following 6 weeks the landlord chased the managing agent several times to obtain an update. Furthermore, after receiving each update it then updated the resident as to the timeline of the repairs. As the repair timeline was out of the landlord’s hands, it was appropriate that it took that action. This would have held the managing agent to account for the repairs and ensured a swift resolution for the resident.
Following completion of the repairs on 3 July 2023, the landlord arranged for a contractor to visit the resident’s property to assess the damage to the ceiling and to undertake a repair. This swift action to undertake the necessary repairs highlighted the landlord’s commitment to fully resolve the issues for the resident show she could start to enjoy her home again.
Throughout the duration of the issue, the resident consistently raised with the landlord that it should replace her TV, mattress and other items damaged from the leak. The landlord consistently informed the resident that its compensation policy did not cover personal items and the resident should claim on her insurance. It appropriately linked this reasoning to its compensation policy. It was reasonable of the landlord to follow its compensation policy. Furthermore, it correctly told the resident that she had the choice to make a personal injury claim if she wished and offered to help the resident in doing so. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
When the resident first reported the issue, the landlord did not take responsibility and incorrectly recommended that the resident resolve it herself by contacting the managing agent. The landlord only took action after the resident involved her MP. However, each time following this when the issue reoccurred, the landlord swiftly contacted the managing agent and kept consistent communication with both the agent and the resident. This held the managing agent to account and kept the resident updated on the repair status. After each repair, the landlord acted quickly to fix the resident’s flat, including committing to replace her carpets on the last occasion. When the resident reported a further issue, the landlord escalated its response and conducted a joint visit, despite not being responsible for the leak repair. The landlord acknowledged its failings when the resident first reported the leak. The landlord also linked its decision not to provide compensation for the resident’s damaged items to its policy, providing information on how she could make a personal injury claim. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accepted its failings and offered £500 compensation to reflect the time, trouble, and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The Ombudsman, therefore, considers the landlords offer of compensation reflective of the significance with which the landlord viewed its failings. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

A complaint, as defined by the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) is:
1. An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.’
On 13 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord after a repair, done by the leaseholder of the flat above, had failed. She said further damage had occurred to her property. The landlord appropriately recognised this to be a complaint and therefore acknowledged it as one siting the further service failure and the age of the issue as the reasoning for doing so. This was in line with both its policy and the Code.
However, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident 25 working days after it was originally due. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that where a delay in providing a response occurs, it would communicate this to the resident and provide information on when it would give a response. There is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated the delay in responding to the resident. This was not appropriate and would have delayed the resident in receiving a resolution for her complaint.
At stage 1, the landlord followed its complaint policy and did not consider events that had occurred more than 6 months previously. While this approach was reasonable, the landlord could have done more to explore the wider issues given the resident’s assertion that the issue had been ongoing for some time.
However, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord appropriately recognised that the issue was a wider one and that it would be reasonable to look beyond the previous 6 months. It then undertook a thorough review of the history of the issue going back to 2020. Furthermore, it appropriately offered the resident compensation of £100 to apologise for not taking this stance in its first response.
The landlord appropriately responded at stage 2, in line with its policy, within 19 days.
The landlord did not respond on time at stage 1, nor did it apologise for the delay in its stage 1 response. While it followed its policy in its stage 1 response and did not look beyond 6 months, it did then recognise that it should have used its discretion to look at the history of the issue. It did then accept the change in its stance as a failing at stage 2 and offered reasonable compensation as redress for is failing. However, a finding of reasonable redress is not appropriate in this case due to the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the delay at stage 1.
Therefore, taking into account the above there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
A compensation order as therefore been made for £150, made up of the following:
1. £50 for not responding within the correct timescale at stage 1.
2. £100 for not considering matters beyond 6 months old at stage 1.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlords handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the property and the associated damage caused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £150. The landlord should pay this amount, less any compensation that has previously been offered for its failings shown in its complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order.

Recommendations

As a finding of reasonable redress was made based on the compensation offered in this case, the landlord should pay the resident the £500 it offered if it has not already done so.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord committed to replacing the resident’s carpet. The Ombudsman understands the landlord has not yet done this; therefore, the landlord should contact the resident as soon as possible to arrange the replacement of her carpets.