Peabody Trust (202007243)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007243

Peabody Trust

29 February 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:
1. reports of repairs in the property, as follows:
  1. damaged flooring
  2. damaged doors
  3. damaged walls
  4. damaged ceilings
  5. damaged skirting boards
  6. poor ventilation
  7. the smell of damp when it rains,
  8. he needed an oven hood in the kitchen
  9. excessive dust,
  10. a leak
  11. the small of damp
2. reports of anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’).
3. request for a transfer.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupies a property under a secure tenancy agreement dated 12 December 1992. The property is a one-bedroom, first-floor flat. The resident told this service that he has mental health vulnerabilities, COPD, musculoskeletal problems impacting his mobility and schizophrenia. The landlord told this service it did not have any vulnerabilities listed for the resident.
The resident told this service that the repair issues in his property had been ongoing for around 24 years. He explained that his property had damp and mould because of a leak and poor ventilation. This caused damage to the ceilings, walls, flooring, and skirting boards. In addition to this, he felt that his property was not suitable for his medical needs because it aggravated his health conditions. He also explained that he had been subject to ASB from his neighbours which included vandalism to his car and physical assault.
The resident reported:
1. the repairs on or around 9 February 2021.
2. an incident where his car was vandalised on 31 January 2020
3. that he was in fear at his home because he felt his neighbours were intimidating on or around 22 August 2021
4. a further incident of car vandalism on 17 May 2022.
The resident requested a transfer on 9 February 2021 because the property worsened his medical conditions, the property conditions and he felt unsafe living there.
Between 29 April 2021 and 4 November 2022, the landlord told the resident that significant works were needed in the property and the works the landlord said were required expanded. The landlord provided the resident with temporary accommodation whilst some of the repairs were undertaken. The landlord completed the repairs on or around 16 November 2022.
The landlord met with the resident, provided him with an action plan and wrote to the resident’s neighbours about neighbourly behaviour. It also offered the resident a referral to the community safety and wellbeing team, which the resident declined.
The resident requested a move through the landlord’s housing register and asked for two-bedroom properties. Between February 2022 and October 2022, the landlord assessed his priority and eligibility against its allocation policy based on the information available to it. The landlord gave the resident the highest priority on its register on or around October 2021. It told him on 23 October 2022 it could not agree to upgrade his bedroom eligibility because it could not confirm that he met the requirements for this.
On 17 April 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint because he felt the landlord had ignored his transfer request, and did not complete repairs that had been outstanding in his property for two decades and how this had impacted his health conditions. When this service wrote to the landlord to help the resident in progressing his complaint in November 2021, the resident raised his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of ASB.
On 10 January 2022, the landlord’s stage 1 response referred the resident to its response to his MP. The landlord issued another stage 1 response on 18 February 2022 where it said:
1. It would not revisit former complaints.
2. Listed the schedule of repairs due at the property.
3. Explained it could not progress the ASB case because there was not enough evidence.
4. Confirmed the resident was only eligible for a one-bedroom property.
The resident escalated his concerns on 22 March 2022. The resident explained he was dissatisfied with his bedroom eligibility and the standard of the repair work, particularly his request for a new ventilation system, which the landlord had denied.
In the landlord’s final response on 14 June 2022, it apologised for the impact of the property condition on the resident and his health conditions, not delivering repairs on time and the distress and inconvenience of this and having to chase repairs. It offered him £450 compensation for this. It later increased its offer of compensation to £622.28 to account for the time it took to resolve the resident’s repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident told this service that he had repeatedly reported repair issues with his property for the last 24 years and that he wanted this service to investigate this as part of the investigation into this complaint. The resident said that he had raised multiple complaints during this time which the landlord had not responded to.
The Ombudsman is unable to investigate events that happened 24 years ago. This is because this service would be unable to come to a fair and reasonable conclusion about events that occurred historically. In addition, it is unreasonable to expect the landlord to have sufficient records for this time to rely upon. For clarity, the Ombudsman will use its discretion to extend the scope of this investigation to 12 months before 17 April 2021 when the formal complaint was raised by the resident.
The evidence shows the resident reported an incident of ASB on 31 January 2020. This service will not consider the resident’s first report because it falls outside of the scope of this investigation. However, it will consider the resident’s reports of ASB on or around 22 August 2021 and 17 May 2022.

Repairs

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair. In addition to this, under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords are responsible for ensuring that repairs are lasting and effective in all cases once it is notified of the issue by a resident. Repairs must also be completed promptly to avoid impacting the resident’s enjoyment and use of their home.
The landlord’s repair policy categorises repairs as:
1. Emergency repairs. These need rapid response to safeguard the well-being of residents, the structural stability and integrity of properties and/or the health and safety of people in the affected area. The landlord aims to attend these repairs within 2 hours.
2. Programmed repairs. These are works that require more time due to manufacture, complexity, or specialist trade, such as damp works, roofing works with scaffolding and bathroom replacements. The landlord aims to complete these repairs within 60 calendar days.
3. Next available repairs. These are non-urgent repairs needed to rectify a fault and should be scheduled when resources are available. The landlord aims to complete these repairs within 28 calendar days.
The evidence shows that the landlord was aware that the resident was reporting issues about property conditions, within the scope of the investigation, on 9 February 2021. It also shows that some of the resident’s reports were generic reports, for example, “the property conditions are poor.” The resident reported that the repair issues included holes in his skirting boards and damp and mould in his formal complaint on 17 April 2021.
Between 15 April 2021 and 18 March 2022 the resident reported on 13 occasions that the condition of his property was poor and impacting on his health conditions. The repairs included those items specified above in paragraph 1(a).
The landlord placed the resident in temporary accommodation on 18 March 2022 whilst it sought to rectify the issues in his property.
It is noted that much of the evidence shows that the resident reported his repair issues through a separate department that was not responsible for repairs. However, the resident was signposted to the correct team and told how to report repairs in his property. The evidence shows most of these reports were directly forwarded to the repairs department. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the resident is only obliged to give the landlord notice of repairs. Once it receives notice, it will be responsible for inspecting and repairing within a reasonable time from the date of that notice regardless of which department was contacted.
The resident’s MP also contacted the landlord on 12 October 2021 to report repair issues on his behalf. The resident’s occupational therapist also contacted the landlord throughout 2021 and 2022 about the resident’s housing conditions. There is also evidence that other departments had asked the landlord for an update on the repairs needed in January 2022.
The landlord said that it had completed several works in the property including installing a new bathroom and central heating unit. It also said it had attended to survey the property conditions on three occasions before 26 April 2021. During those inspections, it said the resident was leaving his windows open and not putting on the heating. It also said that the resident refused work and that he reports repairs intermittently and then does not hear from him “for months.” It said this situation had been ongoing for several years.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord was aware of the need to assess the resident’s property on 9 February 2021. The landlord supplied evidence of taking the following actions:
1. It conducted a home visit on 10 September 2021 and wrote to the resident on 13 September 2021 to say that it would provide the resident with an update on his repairs. This was 7 months later.
2. It called the resident on or around 11 February 2022 and found that the repair issues in the property were more significant than just cracks in the walls and ceilings. As a result, it agreed to carry out a full survey of the property inclusive of temperature and humidity levels, make up, condition and potential recommendations for the improvement of damp and mould issues.
3. It surveyed the property on or around 13 January 2022. The survey found that the window was not closing properly and that there were cracks in the walls and ceilings. The report also noted that it was the tenant’s responsibility to replace any flooring.
4. It surveyed the property on or around 15 February 2022. It said that the follow-on works required the removal of a section of the bathroom ceiling. The bedroom required the removal of the plaster, boarding, and skimming of the wall to suppress damp in the brickwork or dry lime.
5. Conducted repair works on or around 12 May 2022 for:
  1. The removal of the damaged ceilings in the bathroom.
  2. To renew the plasterboard.
  3. To renew the laminate flooring.
  4. To renew the hinges in the lounge window.
  5. Testing the changes to the heating system.
  6. Renewing the radiators in the bathroom.
  7. Dry lining the bedroom external wall.
  8. Repairing the cracks in the ceilings and walls.
  9. Checking the roof for gutter leaks and the pointing to the external brickwork.
6. Assessed the quality of these works on or around 17 June 2022. It found that the works were completed to a satisfactory standard, however, it would check the loft insulation for leaks because the resident was still reporting the smell of damp and excessive dust.
7. Arranged an appointment for a contractor to inspect the resident’s loft insulation on or around 11 August 2022. It assessed the loft again on or around 4 November 2022. The contractor said that:
  1. It removed sections of felt and tiles that had holes in them.
  2. The gutter was blocked and overrunning into the loft felt.
  3. It supplied a water containment box to catch further water whilst scaffolding was erected to complete the tile and felt replacement.

This repair was completed on 16 November 2022.

The resident reported a further leak on 2 November 2022. It attended the property to fix the chimney, which it believed to be the cause, on or around 9 December 2022.
Installed an electrical ventilation system on or around 25 February 2022.

The appointment to inspect the resident’s loft was delayed. This was because initially, the resident cancelled the appointment because of the hot weather. It was re-arranged on or around 6 September 2022, however, the contractor was unable to assess the issue fully because it said the resident’s loft had too many possessions. The landlord offered to help the resident move his possessions to allow the appointment to take place.
The resident chased this appointment twice during late October and early November 2022. As the works required scaffolding, it completed the works within its policy timeframe. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted reasonably for this set of works because it acted on the contractors’ recommendations, and it provided the resident with a short-term fix. This mitigated the impact of the leak on the resident.
The landlord did not provide evidence that it assessed the resident’s repairs until 13 January 2022, although it asserted that it had assessed the resident’s property before 26 April 2021. This was inappropriate and maladministration because the Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is also the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation.
The resident disputed that the landlord completed all the repairs. He said that of the repairs that were completed, most were not of a good standard. However, the landlord surveyed the repair work and concluded that the repair works were of a suitable standard. This assessment triggered further investigations into a reoccurring issue with damp that was part of the resident’s first reports.
The evidence shows that the landlord knew about the repairs on 9 February 2021. The landlord was aware of the full scope of works required at the property on 15 February 2022 and it completed these on 16 November 2022. It took 274 calendar days to identify the root cause of the damp and to make a lasting repair. This was 214 calendar days outside of the timeframe in its repair policy.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord followed the advice of its contractors and independently assessed the workmanship of the repairs. This was appropriate. However, it was clear that the repairs were ineffective at identifying and treating the root cause of the resident’s reports of damp. This was maladministration because this meant it unreasonably delayed in carrying out a lasting repair which impacted the resident’s enjoyment of the property.
The landlord offered the resident £622.28 which was 15% of his rent for the period of 1 February 2022 to 18 March 2022. This was to account for the time it considered the resident had raised the repairs to the time he was temporarily accommodated. It is unclear if the resident has been paid this compensation.
The Ombudsman considers this is not sufficient to address the failures found by this service in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs. This is because the landlord did not consider:
1. The time and trouble of the resident reporting the repairs over an extended period.
2. The distress and inconvenience of the resident for the loss of enjoyment of his property over an extended period.
3. The length of time it took to diagnose and make a lasting repair for the root cause of the resident’s reports.
The Ombudsman notes that the lettings department was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, however, there was nothing noted on the landlord’s system relating to this. This is concerning to note because the resident’s vulnerabilities were not considered as part of the landlord’s approach in other departments of the organisation.

Reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will use a range of preventative measures, early intervention, signposting to mediation services and legal action to tackle ASB. It also states that it will agree to an action plan with the complainant, and any witnesses and keep them informed of the actions taken.
When closing a case, the landlord’s policy says it will consider if all appropriate actions have been taken, if there are no further reports in the past 6 weeks, any failures to engage the complainant during the investigation or if not, further action that it can take. The landlord would then discuss closing the case with the resident raising the concern and would follow this up in writing.
On or around 22 August 2021 the resident reported that he felt scared in his property because his neighbour was intimidating him. The landlord responded by:
1. Advising the resident to report any incidents to the police.
2. Forwarding his concerns to the community safety team on 3 September 2021.
3. Conducting a home visit to the resident on 10 September 2021 to discuss his reports.
4. Providing the resident with an action plan on 13 September 2021 which included:
  1. Offering to speak with the resident’s neighbour. However, the resident declined this.
  2. Sending a generic block letter to the resident’s neighbours about the importance of good neighbourly behaviour.
  3. An explanation that it would be unable to act against his neighbour further based on the resident’s preference.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports by conducting a home visit, issuing an action plan, and acting on the wishes of the resident about how he wanted the issue to be addressed. However, the Ombudsman would expect landlords to ensure it uses its full range of powers and considers it could have offered the resident and his neighbour mediation. This was a service failure because this may have addressed the issues at an earlier stage.
On 17 May 2022, the resident reported to the landlord and the police that his car had been vandalised and that he had been targeted. He sent a picture of staining the front of his car. The landlord responded by calling the resident and explaining that on review of his pictures, it thought the stain was bird excrement. It offered him a referral to the community safety team so that it could do a home visit to discuss his report further. The landlord said that the resident declined this referral.
The evidence shows that the landlord reviewed the resident’s report, and it took reasonable action by providing the resident with the option to investigate this further. The Ombudsman considers that there has been no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this element of the resident’s complaint.

Transfer request

The landlord’s transfer policy states that it assesses applications based on the following:
1. A need to move so that major works can be carried out in the property.
2. Need to move on medical grounds.
3. Need to move to give or receive support.
The policy defines a household as “the tenant plus immediate family. For example, dependent children as well as residential overnight carers.” In addition, it states that where the safety and wellbeing of a resident is at serious risk it may consider a management transfer, where tenants move to Band A or B to enable an emergency or urgent move. In these cases, it is intended that the tenant will move to a property of similar type and size to their current accommodation.
The resident had significant contact with the lettings department and had explained on 9 February 2021, he wished to move property because:
1. His current property was not suitable for his medical conditions, particularly his mobility because he suffers from musculoskeletal problems.
2. His current property was not large enough to house his son who was living with him.
3. His current property had poor housing conditions due to outstanding repairs that were affecting his medical conditions.
4. He was frightened to leave his home because he was experiencing ASB.
The evidence shows the landlord requested further medical information from the resident. When the landlord received the evidence, it assessed the resident’s requests as follows:
1. On 24 May 2021 it explained it had assessed the resident’s banding as a Band C based on the medical information it had reviewed.
2. On 21 October 2021 it explained it had assessed the resident’s banding as Band A. There is no explanation for its decision to award this banding.
When the resident spoke to this service, he was confused about his housing application and the reasons behind the decisions the landlord had made. The letter the landlord issued to the resident on 21 October 2021 detailing its decision to provide him with a management move does not explain why it made this decision.
This was inappropriate and a service failure. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident why his situation merited a management move. This would have had a positive impact regarding the expectations of the resident so that he could understand why the landlord had made its decision and where this fit into the landlord’s lettings policy.
The resident requested his son be added to his housing application on 11 February 2022. The landlord responded by requesting additional documentation to show that his son had lived with him for the previous 12 months. On 22 February 2022, the landlord confirmed that it could not accept the resident’s son on his housing application because he had not been living with the resident for the previous 12 months.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord assessed the application on an ongoing basis as it received new evidence from the resident. However, it is unclear to this service based on the policy provided, that there was a requirement for family members of residents to be living with them 12 months before a request to include them on their housing register application.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states:
1. Stage 1 responses should be issued within 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 responses should be issued within 20 working days of an escalation request being received.
The resident complained on 17 April 2021. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 February 2022. This was 214 working days outside of the required timeframe. This service had to intervene for the resident to receive a formal response. This is because the landlord thought it had responded through an MP enquiry on 10 January 2022.
The resident escalated his complaint on or around 22 March 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 June 2022. It apologised for the impact of the damp and mould on the resident, that he had to chase the repairs and that it did not respond to repairs in line with its policy. The landlord offered £450 compensation.
The Ombudsman considers there to be maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because:
1. The landlord unreasonably delayed in issuing its formal response to the resident. This caused the resident significant additional time and trouble in pursuing the matter to completion.
2. The landlord did not acknowledge its delay in issuing its responses or try to make this failure right.
3. The landlord ought to have known that responding to an MP enquiry is a separate process from that of the internal complaint’s procedure. The Ombudsman expects landlords to progress complaints through its internal complaint procedure in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code
4. This service had to intervene in the complaint process for the landlord to issue its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman expects that complaints are progressed without third-party intervention.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled:
1. The repairs.
2. The resident’s request for a transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination to:
1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failures found in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,450 compensation for:
  1. £1200 for the distress and inconvenience caused and loss of enjoyment of the home caused by the delays and handling of the repairs from 9 February 2021 to 18 March 2023. This figure replaces the award of £622.28 offered by the landlord.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor complaint handling.
3. Arrange a full survey of the property, as the resident told this service he believes there is another leak.
  1. The survey should assess moisture levels in the property
  2. Within 14 days of the inspection, provide the resident with a schedule of works and the intended start date for each of the outstanding issues. This must include when the works are likely to be completed.
  3. The survey should include photographs.
  4. The landlord must use its best endeavours to complete the repairs identified within the timescales shown in its schedule of works.
4. Re-assess the resident’s application not to include his son on his rehousing application. It must consider why it applies the 12-month rule and whether it should make a reasonable adjustment to this rule in the resident’s case and if not, why not.
5. Provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this service.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord:
1. Review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report about ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ to be aware of the correlation between poor knowledge and information management and delay, poor communication, and the impact this can have on residents.
2. Review its internal guidance around recording vulnerabilities to ensure they are recognised and recorded to ensure the landlord is aware of any risks or opportunities to maximise its communications and approaches with residents.
3. Provide training to complaint handlers on the new statutory Code applicable from April 2024. This should address:
  1. Complaint response timeframes.
  2. The need to respond to formal complaints is separate from responding to MP enquiries or complaints.
4. Provide refresher training for relevant colleagues to ensure they are aware that mediation is a tool that can be used as an early intervention to prevent and/or mitigate ASB.
5. Review its banding confirmation templates to ensure residents are aware of the reasons underpinning any decisions regarding housing priority.
6. Review its policy on the 12-month rule. It should consider including this if it intends to rely on it. It should also explain when it will apply its discretion to disapply this.