Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Peabody Trust (202014401)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014401

Peabody Trust

30 July 2021


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. This complaint is about the insurance information given to the resident by the landlord following a leak in his home, and its handling of his subsequent complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease with the landlord. His home is within a building of similar properties. The landlord is not the freeholder of the building.
  2. There was a water leak in the resident’s bathroom in 2020 (the exact date is unknown). On 23 June the landlord advised him that his home was insured under its building insurance policy. It provided details of its insurers. The resident made a claim for damages the following day.
  3. On 10 September 2020 the landlord emailed the resident. It said it had provided incorrect building insurance details in June. It apologised, and said the freeholder insured his building. The next day it advised the resident that it had notified its insurers of the error to redirect his claim to the freeholder’s insurers.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 11 September 2020. He said he had spent a considerable amount of time dealing with his insurance claim. He said he did not understand how the landlord made the mistake. He said his builder was due to begin repair work in one week’s time. He said he wanted a full written apology, and to be compensated for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  5. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 14 September 2020. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused, and explained how the error occurred. It said it realised its mistake when another resident from the same building requested its building insurance policy. It said the freeholder and landlord used the same insurer, and that the insurer had agreed to internally transfer the claim to the correct policy. It said the insurer confirmed there would be no delay as a result of the error.
  6. There were several emails between the landlord and resident following the stage one complaint response. The resident said the landlord had caused delays with the insurers processing his claim, and allowing repair work to begin (he was awaiting payment of the claim). He was dissatisfied that the landlord signed its emails as “insurance team”, rather than giving an individual name. The landlord explained how it had learnt from its error. It said it had not caused the insurers to delay processing his settlement payment. It said it spoke to the insurers on 14 September 2020, and they confirmed that they were still awaiting internal approval for his claim when it notified them of its error.
  7. On 15 September 2020 the resident emailed the landlord again. Amongst other things, he explained that “The loss adjuster confirmed the payment would be received by 4th September, this didn’t occur, i contacted him and was told the payment would be sent the following week due to a hold up. We trusted the payment to come and instructed the builder accordingly. Now with no payments received of any sort for this claim, we cannot proceed with trust alone that we will receive payment for the Insured damages.”
  8. The resident formally escalated his complaint on 16 September 2020. The landlord acknowledged it on 17 September, and 14 October 2020.
  9. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 28 October 2020. It acknowledged that signing its emails as a collective may have appeared insincere. It reiterated that as the freeholder used the same insurer, there had been no delay in processing the payment to him. It apologised for its delay in acknowledging his stage two complaint. It offered him £75 compensation for the distress caused. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied

Assessment and findings

  1. A significant proportion of this complaint involves the insurer’s actions in processing the resident’s claim, and potentially in its communication with him about when he could expect payment. Insurance organisations are not part of the Housing Ombudsman’s remit, and despite the possible role they have played in the events of this complaint, their actions are not ones we consider in this investigation.
  2. The landlord’s website sets out that it will acknowledge stage two complaints within three working days, and issue its final response within 15 working days. Its compensation policy sets out that it will offer up to £100 for distress and inconvenience when its failing has had a low impact on the resident.
  3. It is understandable that the resident would have been concerned that there may have been a potential problem with the progression of his claim. However, the landlord reassured him that it was not this case. It explained that the insurers had confirmed the claim was still processing when it notified them, and that there would be no resulting delay. No evidence has been provided for this investigation indicating that the insurance claim was delayed by the landlord’s mistake Nevertheless, it apologised for its error, and explained how it would take steps to avoid a repeat.
  4. The landlord sent the resident two stage two complaint acknowledgements, and consequently failed to issue its response in line with its target timeframe of 15 working days (it took a total of 29 working days). The resident was dissatisfied that it had signed its emails, (and apologies) at a team level, rather than personally.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with its handling of his complaint, explained how the original error occurred, apologised, took steps to remedy the mistake, and offered a token of compensation. In the absence of any clear evidence of a significant direct impact from the landlord’s incorrect information, these acts were proportionate to the level of the failings in the service it had provided to the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord apologised for its error, and explained how it would ensure it did not repeat it. There is no evidence that the mistake delayed the resident’s insurance pay-out. The landlord’s actions following the error were reasonable and proportionate.