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

Peabody Trust (202318678)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318678

Peabody Trust

8 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. handling of repairs to an external structure.
    2. complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord in a 1-bedroom flat. The resident is diabetic and has cancer which the landlord is aware of. The external structure in this complaint leads into the building and is located outside the block. The landlord has referred to this as a communal porch while the resident has referred to this as his balcony.
  2. On 2 June 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that his balcony had collapsed last summer and had not been repaired. He added that he was told it had asbestos. As a resolution he wanted the balcony rebuilt and the landlord to confirm if the structure contained asbestos. The same day the landlord raised a repair order to replace the ‘balcony flooring’. The resident raised another complaint on 25 August 2023. He said there had been numerous missed appointments to fix the balcony and the landlord had not responded to his complaints.
  3. On 25 September 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it had raised a repair to reinstate ‘his balcony’. On 1 November 2023, following contact from this Service, the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said:
    1. It had raised a repair for its contractor to attend to the communal porch entry and would keep him updated.
    2. It raised a repair in July 2022 and found no asbestos.
    3. It raised a repair for a contractor to attend and replace his balcony flooring, but the wrong tradesperson was sent as it turned out to be a communal porch.
    4. The external structure was not his balcony but a communal porch leading into the building.
    5. It apologised for its communication and the delay in responding to the complaint.
    6. It was unable to offer any individual resident compensation for ‘communal challenges’ but would offer £250 compensation for poor customer service and communication.
  4. In the resident’s escalation request of 7 November 2023 he disagreed that his balcony was a communal porch and felt the compensation offer did not reflect the time and effort he had spent chasing the repair nor the delays in acknowledging his complaints. He added that the situation had harmed the relationship with his neighbour next door as the previous makeshift repair had caused damp and mould patches in their home. On 22 December 2023, following contact from this Service, the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It upheld the complaint. In summary, it:
    1. Apologised that it had taken no action following his complaints in August 2023 and October 2023.
    2. Reiterated that the external structure was a communal porch, and was unsafe to use as a balcony.
    3. Apologised for the delay in resolving the repair, the missed appointments and the problems this matter had caused between him and his neighbour.
    4. Offered a total of £595 compensation, comprised of £275 in recognition of the length of time getting matters resolved, £300 for poor complaint handling and £20 for missed appointments.
  5. In the resident’s referral to this Service, he was unhappy with the lack of communication from the landlord and added that it had promised weekly updates, but this had not happened. He said the landlord’s delay in dealing with the repairs affected the relationship with his neighbours. As a resolution, he wanted a written apology and further compensation.

Assessment and findings

Handling of repairs to an external structure

  1. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, the Service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. The evidence suggested that the resident first reported this matter around July 2022. The landlord’s stage 1 response indicated that it had attended that month and did not find any asbestos within the external structure. Yet this Service has seen no evidence to support this. This likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping and a recommendation is made below. Furthermore, it appeared the landlord did not update the resident on this finding until its formal response. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who given his health conditions would have likely been concerned that he was living close to a potentially harmful structure.
  3. The resident informed this Service that the landlord completed the repair to the external structure in June 2024, around 2 years after the repair was first raised. This was a considerable delay. While this Service notes that a temporary repair was put in place to keep the structure safe, it is unclear when this was carried out. In any case, the landlord failed to complete a permanent repair within its 60-day ‘programme repair’ policy timescales. This would have caused time and trouble to the resident who had to chase the landlord for updates on progress.
  4. Nevertheless, the landlord apologised and identified learning from its failings. In addition, it offered a total of £295 compensation to put things right. Based on the detriment described by the resident, which included time and trouble chasing this matter and the effect this situation had on his relationship with his neighbours, this Service considers that the compensation awarded by the landlord is in line with our remedy’s guidance. This suggests awards of over £100 compensation should be considered where there have been failings that have adversely affected the resident. Furthermore, the landlord has provided photographic evidence that shows that the external structure is a communal porchway and therefore had no detrimental effect on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property. In view of this, the Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress.
  5. In the resident’s referral to this Service, he said the landlord had promised weekly updates. Indeed, the landlord told the resident in January 2024 that he could expect weekly updates about this matter. While the landlord’s records showed that it did keep the resident updated between January 2024 and May 2024, it did not appear to keep to its weekly commitment. Although this service has not fully assessed the landlord’s handling of this matter after its December 2023 final response, a recommendation is made below to improve the landlord-tenant relationship.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident first raised a complaint on 2 June 2023, yet the landlord failed to respond. This led to the resident raising another complaint in August 2023. Again, it failed to respond. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who likely would have felt the landlord was ignoring his concerns.
  2. The landlord’s final response said it received another complaint from the resident on 5 October 2023, however, this Service has seen no evidence of this, which again likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping. In any case, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints on 1 November 2023, almost 5 months after his original complaint. This was a significant delay and the landlord failed to respond within its 10-working day policy timescale at stage 1. Furthermore, it had to be prompted to do so by this Service. This would have caused time and trouble to the resident who had to contact the Ombudsman to progress the complaint.
  3. On 7 November 2023 the resident expressed unhappiness with the landlord’s stage 1 response. Despite this, the landlord failed to acknowledge or escalate the complaint. This led to the resident, again, contacting this Service for assistance. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord’s final response was issued on 22 December 2023, 34 working days after 7 November 2023. This was another delay in resolving matters for the resident and the landlord failed to respond within its 20-working day policy timescale at stage 2.
  4. While the landlord’s approach was contrary to its usual procedure, it acknowledged this, identified learning and offered £300 compensation in recognition. This took into consideration the significant impact caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures. The landlord therefore made an offer which was in accordance with this Service’s guidance and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, proportionately reflected the level of detriment. As such, the landlord’s offer of redress was satisfactory in putting matters right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of repairs to an external structure.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
  2. The landlord should ensure that it keeps to its commitments made to residents and where it is unable to do so it should promptly communicate this, explaining why and a way forward.