Consultation is open on our Business Plan 2025-26 and 5-year Corporate Strategy and we want to hear from you about our plans to deliver an efficient and effective Ombudsman.

Take part today.

Peabody Trust (202316955)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316955

Peabody Trust

2 December 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 repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, and lives in a flat in a block. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident purchased the lease to his property in October 2022.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 November 2022 to report various repairs in his property. He reported the following repairs:
    1. A dent in a window.
    2. A chip in the kitchen worktop.
    3. The balcony door in the bedroom was not locking.
    4. There was an issue with the toilet seat in the bathroom.
  3. It is unclear what action the landlord took at the time the resident initially reported them. The resident chased the landlord about the repairs on 6 January 2023. He also raised other repair issues, which were: an issue with the door entry intercom system, and that the ventilation system was “too loud” when it was operating. It is unclear what action the landlord took at that time.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 21 March 2023. He said that he had repairs issues since he moved into the property, and that he did not have time to keep chasing it about the repairs. He set out the outstanding repairs, as listed above.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 11 April 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint, and apologised for the delay in attending to the repairs. It said the repairs were raised with its contractor and some of the defects were attended to, but not all. The contractor “rejected” some of the “snag items” such as the chipped worktop, scratches in the floor, and the toilet seat. It accepted the resident had chased the repairs, but it had failed to respond on 2 occasions. It set out that its contractor would attend to the faulty door entry panel, and the bedroom door lock. It said another contractor would attend to the toilet seat, chipped worktop, scratched floor, and the dent in the window. It said it would be in touch to make an offer of compensation once the repairs were completed.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked about its “escalation process” on 10 May 2023. He said the landlord came and took pictures several weeks before, but the repairs did not go ahead.
  7. The landlord repaired the door entry system on 17 May 2023. It completed repairs to the scratches in the floor and the kitchen worktop on 24 May 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 9 June 2023 and asked him for clarification on some of the repairs. It offered the resident £100 in compensation for its handling of the repairs. The landlord started investigating the fan issue in July 2023. It found the noise levels were within acceptable “parameters”.
  8. The landlord’s contractor attended to the window repair in August 2023. From the evidence available, the exact date is unclear. The landlord emailed the resident on 29 August 2023 and explained it had completed part of the window repair. Its contractor would contact him that day to book the follow up repair to the window. Its email also set out that it was going to install a “silencer or sound compactor” to reduce the noise from the ventilation system. The landlord delivered a new toilet seat to the resident on 1 September 2023, the resident declined the landlord’s offer to install the toilet seat. The landlord completed the window frame repair on 30 October 2023.
  9. Following an intervention from this Service, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 11 December 2023. It outlined the history of each repair. It apologised that some of the repairs took too long to complete. It set out its position on the ventilation system, and said due to the specialist nature of the repair it would take time to resolve. It offered the resident £480 for its handling of the repairs, and £200 for the delays in its complaint handling.

 

Events after the complaint

  1. The landlord completed works to the ventilation system on 10 January 2024 which involved boxing in the unit. A report it completed at its visit stated it reduced the noise by 20 decibels.
  2. The resident contacted this Service on 24 March 2024 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s compensation offer and the “inadequacy” of the proposed solution to the noise from the ventilation system.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

  1. The resident’s ‘home user guide’ set out that the developer of the property was responsible for defects reported until March 2023. The landlord would then assume responsibility for defects for a further 12 months.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will consider paying compensation for defect, within the defect liability period. It expects to put routine defects right within 60 days, urgent defects within 30 days.
  3. Under the resident’s lease agreement, the repairs reported as part of his complaint would usually be the resident’s responsibility to resolve (with the exception of the intercom system). However, as set out above the resident’s property was within its defect liability period when he raised the repairs, as such the landlord and developer were responsible for resolving the repairs.

Repairs to the toilet seat

  1. The evidence shows that the landlord was put on notice about the defective toilet seat on 16 November 2022. The landlord considered the defect a repair that the developer was responsible for, and passed it on to the contractor to complete. This was appropriate in the circumstances, considering the property was still within the defect liability period. However, the evidence indicates the repair did not go ahead at that time, and the landlord has not supplied evidence to indicate it had appropriate oversight of the repair to ensure it had gone ahead. The resident was inconvenienced by this, experienced further time and trouble by needing to raise the repair again in January and March 2023.
  2. By March 2023, the toilet seat repair became a defect the landlord was responsible for. The evidence available for this investigation indicates that the landlord was not proactive in progressing with the matter, which caused the resident a further inconvenience.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of April 2023, accepted that its communication and oversight of the contractor was poor. It set out that its step in contractor would complete the toilet seat repair. Following its complaint investigation the landlord sought to progress with the repairs, and indicates it sought to put right its earlier failings. That it did not set out when it hoped to complete the repairs was a shortcoming in its response. The resident was evidently frustrated at the time it had taken to progress with the repairs. Setting out when it hoped to progress with the repairs would have helped reassure the resident, and build trust.
  4. The evidence shows that the landlord did not learn from the outcomes of its earlier failings in its handling of the toilet seat repair. There were further delays and the landlord did not provide the resident with a replacement toilet seat until around 1 September 2023. This was 10 months after the resident put the landlord on notice about the issue, and 5 months after its stage 1 response. This further delay increased the inconvenience the resident experienced, and supports the conclusion that the landlord did not learn from the failings it identified at stage 1. The resident experienced time and trouble of needing to chase the landlord about the repairs in June and August 2023.
  5. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response, of December 2023, to acknowledge and apologise for the further delay in completing the repairs. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and we welcome the fact the landlord made an increased offer of compensation to try and put right the further detriment experienced.

Repairs to the ventilation system

  1. The landlord was on notice about the noise issues with the ventilation system from 6 January 2023. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns at that time, which was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident experienced an inconvenience of the landlord not investigating his concerns, which was unreasonable. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to raise a complaint in order to try and get the landlord to take action on the issue.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of April 2023, was silent on the ventilation system issue. It is noted the landlord set out that it was something the resident had raised in his complaint. However, it did not give its position on this issue, which was unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by raising something as part of his complaint, and the landlord not responding to this particular concern.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord did not start investigating the resident’s concerns about the ventilation system until July 2023. This was 6 months after it was on notice about the issue which was an unreasonable delay. This inconvenienced the resident, and the delay in completing an appropriate investigation increased the frustration he experienced.
  4. Following the unreasonable delay in investigating the ventilation system, the evidence shows the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously. While it found the noise levels were within acceptable parameters, it still sought to reduce the noise from the system. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it had due consideration for the impact the issue was having on the resident.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of December 2023, set out its position in the ventilation system issue. This went some way to putting right the failings of its stage 1 response. It set out that it was complex issue and would take time to resolve. This was appropriate as it sought to manage the resident’s expectations. That it offered redress for the “time and trouble” the resident experienced in raising the repair before it took action was appropriate. This is evidence the landlord sought to put right the detriment the resident experienced.
  6. The issue was a complex one to resolve, and the evidence shows the landlord sought advice from the manufacturer of the system. This is evidence it thoroughly investigated the resident’s concerns. While it is noted it did not complete works to reduce the sound until January 2024, the information we have available indicates the landlord sought to progress with the works. The need to order parts, and complexity of the repair, meant the delay was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control.
  7. The landlord installed a box around the ventilation unit, in January 2024, in an attempt to reduce the sound transference from it. The landlord completed sound testing as part of the works. This is evidence the landlord was thorough in its approach and sought to ensure the steps it had taken were effective. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  8. It is noted that the resident was unhappy with the solution the landlord identified, and he feels the matter is unresolved. It is not within the remit of this Service to determine if the level of noise from the fan was unreasonable, or not. It is our role to establish whether the landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns, and whether the steps it took were appropriate in the circumstances. While there was an unreasonable delay in investigating the issue, after it initiated its investigation, its actions were appropriately thorough. It explained its position with clarity, and took reasonable steps to reduce the sound from the unit.

 

Window repair

  1. The landlord was on notice about the repair to the window from November 2022. As set out above, there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord had appropriate oversight of the repair, a fact it accepted in its stage 1 complaint response, of April 2023. Again, the landlord did not set out when it hoped to complete the repair in its complaint response, which was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter.
  2. The landlord completed the first repair to the window in August 2023, 9 months after the resident first reported the issue, and 4 months after it had said it would proceed with the repair in its stage 1 complaint response. This was an unreasonable delay, and outside of the repairs timeframes set out in its repairs policy. The resident experienced an inconvenience of having to chase the landlord to progress with the repairs in June and August 2023.
  3. The repair to the window was complex, and required an additional visit to fill the frame with resin. The later delay was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. However, the evidence shows the landlord was not proactive in completing the follow up repair, and the resident had to chase it again in September 2023. This caused a further inconvenience to the resident. The landlord then arranged for the contractor to attend on 19 October 2023, but this was cancelled due to staff sickness. While evidently frustrating for the resident, this was a delay outside of the landlord’s control.
  4. The landlord told this Service, in November 2024, it completed the follow up repair to the window on 30 October 2023. The landlord has not provided corroborating evidence of this repair, which is a failing in its record keeping. However, the resident did not dispute the window repairs were completed, so it is reasonable to conclude the repair did take place at that time. The repair was completed nearly a year after the landlord was on notice about the issue. This amounts to an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of December 2023, offered a detailed explanation of its handling of the window repair, and appropriately apologised for the delays in progressing with the repair. This is evidence the landlord conducted its complaint investigation with transparency, and it sought to learn from the outcomes of the case. We welcome the fact the landlord made an increased offer of compensation to try and put right the further detriment the resident experienced.

Repairs to the kitchen worktop

  1. The landlord was on notice about the repair to the kitchen worktop from November 2022. As set out above, there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord had appropriate oversight of the repair, a fact it accepted in its stage 1 complaint response, of April 2023. Again, the landlord did not set out when it hoped to complete the repair in its complaint response, which was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter.
  2. The landlord completed the kitchen worktop repair on 24 May 2024, this was 6 months after it was on notice about the issue. The resident was inconvenienced by the unreasonable delay, and experienced time and trouble of having to repeatedly raise the repair, and chase the landlord for a response in January and March 2023.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of December 2023 appropriately apologised for the delays in progressing with the repair. This is evidence the landlord conducted its complaint investigation with transparency, and it sought to learn from the outcomes of the case. We welcome the fact the landlord made an increased offer of compensation to try and put right the further detriment the resident experienced. This showed learning and evidence the landlord sought to adopt the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes, and putting things right.

Repair to intercom system

  1. The landlord was on notice about the repair to the intercom system from January 2023. As set out above, there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord had appropriate oversight of the repair, a fact it accepted in its stage 1 complaint response, of April 2023.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response set out its position of which contractor would be handling the repair. Again, the landlord did not set out when it expected the repair to go ahead, which was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter. By failing to do so it missed an opportunity to reassure the resident the repair would take place soon, and build trust with him
  3. The intercom repair took place on 17 May 2023, this was 5 months after it was on notice about the issue. The resident was inconvenienced by the unreasonable delay, and experienced time and trouble of having to repeatedly raise the repair, and chase the landlord for it to progress with the repair.
  4. As set out above, the landlord appropriately apologised and offered redress for the delays with the repairs in its stage 2 complaint response. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and evidence the landlord had due consideration for the impact its handling of the repairs had on the resident.

Repairs Redress

  1. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the role of this Service 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 we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord accepted that its handling of the repairs was poor, and there were multiple failings. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response of December 2023 to make an increased offer of compensation to the resident. The landlord’s response was transparent and showed learning about its handling of the repairs, which was appropriate. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. The guidance states that findings of maladministration may be made when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”.
  3. The level of redress offered was appropriate, and the landlord’s complaint response was transparent and showed appropriate learning. As such we have determined that the landlord’s offer of £480 in compensation for its handling of the repairs was reasonable in the circumstances and put things right for the resident.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure, which states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint response timeframes mirror our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent 15 working days after it was made. This was outside of the timeframes set out in its complaint policy, and the Code. That the landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its complaint response was inappropriate. It is worth noting any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive.
  3. The resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, on 10 May 2023, and asked about its escalation procedures. That the landlord did not open a stage 2 complaint investigation at that stage was unreasonable and a failing in its complaint handling. The Code states that “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2”. That it did not do so is evidence it operated an obstructive complaints process that inconvenienced the resident.
  4. The evidence shows the resident made similar requests about the landlord’s escalation process on 29 June, 11 August, 26 October 2023. This is further evidence the landlord operated an obstructive and hard to access complaints process. The resident experienced a further inconvenience of repeatedly raising concerns about the landlord’s complaint, and handling of the substantive issues, without it progressing his complaint. The resident experienced further time and trouble by the need to seek assistance from this Service in order to get a response to his stage 2 complaint.
  5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response 152 working days after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 complaint response. This was an unreasonable delay and well outside of the timeframes set out in its complaint policy, and the Code.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response showed learning and transparency about the delay at stage 1, and its failure to progress with the resident’s escalation requests. This is evidence the landlord appropriately considered its complaint handling, and showed learning about its poor complaint handling. We welcome the fact the landlord offered the resident compensation to try and put right the delays in its complaint handling.
  7. Considering our remedies guidance, as set out above, we have determined the landlord’s offer of £200 in compensation for the complaint handling failings was appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with 53(b) the landlord, the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
  2. In accordance with 53(b) the landlord, the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord pays the resident the £480 in compensation it offered for its handling of the repairs.
  2. It is recommended the landlord pays the resident the £200 in compensation it offered for its complaint handling.