Peabody Trust (202307638)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307638

Peabody Trust

27 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 various repairs, including a roof leak, window repairs and the gas supply to the property.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as per paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the second floor of a low-rise block of flats.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 26 April 2023. She said:
    1. She had experienced leaks in the property which the landlord had failed to resolve for a number of months, and this had damaged her belongings, including her sofa and carpet.
    2. The window in her sitting room had been unable to close for a number of months, which caused the property to be cold and she had to put cloth in the gaps to keep warm. She said it also meant she spent more money trying to heat the property which caused her bills to increase.
    3. The electrics in the property had repeatedly tripped for over a month.
    4. There was an issue with the gas supply to her cooker where she had no gas for over a week which meant that she was unable to cook food.
    5. It had missed multiple repair appointments.
    6. She was unhappy with its communication as she struggled to speak to the right team over the phone and her housing officer failed to return her call.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 May 2023. It apologised for its poor communication and for the inconvenience caused by the property condition deteriorating. It said it had asked its contractors to assess the cause of the leak and it would then make any necessary repairs. It said it had raised repairs to address the gas and window, but it had struggled to contact her to arrange an appointment and said it would make further attempts to do so. It said an electrician had tested the electrics and had resolved this. It offered £150 compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the outstanding repairs and lack of communication.
  4. On 15 May 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord. She said that the property remained without gas which meant she had been unable to cook for almost 2 months. She said that it had made an appointment, but the landlord’s contractor failed to attend, and that this impacted her financially as she took time off work to allow access. She asked it to fix the gas issue.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 11 October 2023. It said:
    1. It had missed opportunities to put things right, and had failed to keep its promises or communicate updates to the resident.
    2. It acknowledged its poor repairs record keeping, which meant it was unable to find updates on the issues complained about or information about missed appointments.
    3. It asked its contractors to provide updates regarding the leaks, gas repair and sitting room window. It said it would then pass any outstanding works onto a specialist contractor to address.
    4. It would inspect the property condition and address any repairs required.
    5. To put things right going forward, it would review processes and procedures to reduce delays in completing repairs and enhance its record keeping.
    6. It apologised for the experience the resident had and said it would leave the complaint open until it completed the repairs. It said it would contact her shortly to ensure she did not experience further delays.
    7. It offered her a total of £1,050 compensation, made up of £800 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused and £250 for the complaint handling (because of the delays the resident experienced in the responses to her complaint at both stage 1 and stage 2).
  6. The resident informed the Ombudsman that she had instructed a solicitor to raise a legal disrepair claim. Her solicitor initiated the pre-action protocol for the claim on 23 November 2023.
  7. A property condition assessment and an expert witness report was produced on 6 March 2024, as instructed by the resident’s solicitors as part of the legal disrepair claim. The report included all the outstanding repairs in the property, such as the lack of gas supply, the ongoing leak, and the window repair.
  8. On 6 June 2024, the landlord and the resident’s solicitor reached a settlement on the legal disrepair claim. The settlement agreed that the landlord would pay damages of £2,500 to be offset against any rent arrears, and for it to complete repairs as outlined in the expert witness report within 90 days.
  9. In a letter from the resident’s solicitor to the landlord’s solicitor, where they agreed the settlement on 6 June 2024, the resident’s solicitor outlined that they would “reserve the right to take any and all legal enforcement action required should the terms of the agreement reached not be adhered to”.
  10. Additionally, in a letter from the resident’s solicitor to the resident, they said that they would “remain instructed as your solicitors to ensure the terms of the agreement are complied with”.
  11. The resident has since told the Ombudsman that she wanted this Service to investigate her complaint because she had concerns about what might happen if the landlord did not adhere to the settlement terms by completing the repairs or paying her the amount it awarded for damages.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. Through her solicitors, the resident has accepted a settlement to her legal disrepair claim against the landlord. The landlord currently remains within the 90-day period set out in the settlement to complete the necessary repairs at the property.
  3. The resident is concerned about what may happen if the landlord fails to comply with the terms set out in the settlement agreement. As outlined in the resident’s solicitor’s letter to the landlord, her solicitors have the right to take legal enforcement action if the landlord failed to adhere to the terms of the settlement agreement.
  4. Additionally, as advised in the resident’s solicitors letter to the resident, her solicitors would maintain involvement to ensure the landlord complies with the settlement agreement. Therefore, if the resident requires any further support to remedy this matter, she has the opportunity to seek a remedy through her solicitor with legal enforcement action against the landlord. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the handling of negotiations between the resident’s solicitor and the landlord or enforce the terms of the settlement reached.
  5. Therefore, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, this complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  6. The Ombudsman appreciates that this determination may be disappointing to the resident, but as detailed in the report, the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints that fall within the Scheme.