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

Peabody Trust (202210230)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210230

Peabody Trust

28 March 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 compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues affecting his toilet.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the compensation offered for its complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat which contains a kitchen and a bathroom. The property is located on the first floor. The tenancy commenced January 2010.
  2. The resident has advised this Service that he has mental health vulnerabilities. This is known to the landlord but is not recorded on its information systems.
  3. On 20 June 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that occasionally his toilet was blocked causing water to overflow. He recalled this happening to him a few years ago, which was due to a drainage issue. He told it that it could be the same issue with drainage that had arisen. An appointment was booked for 29 June 2022. When its contractor inspected the toilet at his property, they replaced the float valve, cleared the blockage, tested, and left it functioning. A recommendation to inspect the CCTV was made by the contractor as the problem was a recurrence.
  4. Through this Service, the resident complained to the landlord on 15 August 2022 regarding his toilet and drainage issues. He said he was not happy with its handling of the repairs and its communication. It sent its stage 1 complaint response on 19 August 2022 and apologised for the inconvenience. The landlord outlined an action plan which consisted of:
    1. a contractors visit to carry out descaling repairs on 30 August 2022
    2. the landlord would monitor progress with the repairs and act as the point of contact
    3. the landlord would check the resident was satisfied with the outcome and confirm the following:
      1. the compensation offer
      2. escalation rights to stage 2 of its internal complaint procedure
  5. On 30 September 2022 the landlord sent a follow up stage 1 complaint and outlined the history of repairs since his report on 22 June 2022 which was as follows:
    1. contractors attended on 23 June 2022 and cleared the blockage
    2. on 17 July 2022 a CCTV survey to assess the conditions of pipework was carried out and revealed a buildup of scale
    3. on 8 August 2022 contractors carried out a descale of the toilet pipework which included:
      1. pushed cable around waste
      2. machine downstream to clear blockages
    4. contractors visited on 10 August 2022 to remove any buildup of scale
    5. on 31 August 2022 a descale from the stack pipe on the first floor was conducted
    6. contractors returned to the property on 22 September 2022 and lifted all manholes surrounding the block and cleared the blockage
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 30 September 2022, an award of £250 was made which took into consideration the resident’s time and trouble, and inconvenience. This was increased to £300 on 5 October 2022 which the resident accepted. On 26 October 2022 the resident told the landlord he wanted to escalate the complaint as he did not feel the level of compensation was sufficient. In his email of 28 November 2022, he wanted £1,000 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience. He made the following points regarding his initial complaint:
    1. the landlord had refused to send a drainage contractor to jet spray the outside drain at the outset despite his report of problems
    2. the resident felt his time was wasted letting in contractors into his flat that were unable to resolve the main issue regarding drainage
    3. the contractors that visited the resident’s property made a mess
    4. the resident was concerned that a hole near his toilet which was sealed in September 2022, had potential to cause leaks in the future
    5. the resident would use the bathroom unclothed so there was no contamination, which he felt caused him to fall ill in September 2022
    6. the toilet and bathroom was unfit for human habitation as toilet water had sprayed onto several items in the bathroom
    7. the resident said he suffers from mental health vulnerabilities and was told to see a doctor by the landlord
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 22 December 2022. It apologised for not checking the external drains earlier. It agreed that its contractors had not made best use of the visits and identified the repair at the earliest opportunity. Although there was no evidence to support the contractors had made a mess, it apologised if there were occasions where his home was not left tidy. It recognised it did not complete all the repairs in the timescales given or expect, and was unable to comment on how he used the facilities. It could also not comment on things that had not happened, but as there was only 1 toilet, it agreed the repairs should have been prioritised. It said it learned that its record keeping was below standards, provided feedback to its contractors in managing and administering repairs, and will be looking to recruit more staff members in the future.
  8. To put things right, the landlord in its final response offered an additional £469.69 in compensation. A total of £769.69 comprised of:
    1. £119.69 for loss of bathroom (calculated at 10% of weekly rent for 9.3 weeks)
    2. £250 for further time, trouble, and inconvenience
    3. £100 for poor complaint handling
    4. £300 offered at stage 1 of the landlord’s internal complaints process
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and sent an email on 12 January 2023 disputing its response. He said although he was satisfied with the amount it awarded for time, trouble, and inconvenience, as well as complaint handling, the compensation for loss of room was not enough. He felt that aspect did not justify the number of days he was unable to get full enjoyment from the bathroom. He was reliant on his bathroom for exercising, the floor was too dirty, and he spent time and money on cleaning products as a result of the toilet issue. He wanted the amount offered for the loss of room aspect changed from 10% to 50%, alongside the £650 offered for other elements of the complaint. The landlord responded on the same day and said it was not brought to their attention before, that he used the bathroom for exercise. It maintained that its response was fair.
  10. The resident called this Service on 7 February 2023 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and wanted us to investigate his complaint. He reiterated that in calculating the loss of room compensation, the landlord’s 10% was not sufficient, instead it should have been 50%.

Assessment and finding

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted the resident said that the drainage issues prevented him from using the bathroom and in turn his health was affected. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot confirm the effect of the landlord’s actions or inaction on the resident’s health and the resident may wish to seek independent advice if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint. However, the resident had raised these concerns directly with the landlord. Therefore, we have considered the compensation offered that considers the distress and inconvenience or time and trouble the situation involving drainage issues affecting his toilet had on him.

Policies and procedures

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places statutory obligations on the landlord. It is to keep in repair and proper working order, the installations in the property that supply water and dwelling for sanitation. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, it is to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties, which includes personal hygiene, sanitation, and drainage. Therefore, the landlord is required to consider whether drainage issues affecting sanitation amenities in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. This is echoed in the tenancy agreement, where the landlord is to keep in good repair and proper working order any installations provided by it for sanitation and supply of water, including basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes. The landlord is also to keep in good repair communal areas.
  3. In the landlord’s compensation policy. for each unusable room, its residents can receive a percentage of weekly rent. This is up to a maximum of 50% of the weekly rent as compensation. For bathrooms, it is up to 25% of the weekly rent. For instances of partial loss of a room, the percentage of compensation can be less. It uses an example of when the bath in a bathroom is unusable, it may award 5% instead of 25%, as the whole room was not unusable or does not stop the room from being used.
  4. The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. It aims to complete non-urgent repairs in 28 calendar days.
  5. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy stated there were 2 stages to its complaints process. At stage 1 it would acknowledge complaints in 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. Residents would have 10 working days to escalate the complaint from the date of its stage 1 complaint response. At stage 2, it would respond in 20 working days.

Compensation for drainage issues affecting the resident’s toilet

  1. The landlord has accepted that it failed in its service delivery to the resident, who is disputing the level of compensation offered by it. Therefore, this report will concentrate on whether the landlord has offered fair compensation. In considering this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles and remedies guidance. The principles of effective dispute resolution are:
    1. be fair, treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2. put things right
    3. learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord said it should have completed the repairs in line with its repairs policy by 18 July 2022. From the information provided, it would not have been reasonable for it to link the repairs required in June 2022 to the repair undertaken to the external drainage in February 2020, due to the time that had passed. Despite the resident’s reports that it may be due to the external drainage, it was fair for the landlord to first inspect what repairs were required to the toilet and rely on professional evidence and opinion. It was initially recommended by its contractors it carried out a CCTV survey.
  3. The landlord did not have a CCTV survey carried out until 17 July 2022, which identified a buildup of scales but could not see a blockage. It then did not action any works until 8 August 2022 despite knowing the resident was still facing issues. Following this, the resident formally complained and despite continued reports, it was not until 22 September 2022 it cleared the blockage in the external drains, which ultimately resolved the issue with the resident’s toilet. This was a delay of 94 calendar days since he reported repairs were required and 66 calendar days since it admitted it should have completed the repairs by 18 July 2022.
  4. It was therefore not appropriate that the landlord did not carry out the works sooner as it far exceeded the timelines in its responsive repairs policy. It is reasonable to conclude that had the works been carried out sooner, the drainage issue affecting the resident’s toilet in June 2022 may have been remedied quicker. This would have also avoided him having to chase the landlord for updates, causing time, trouble, and inconvenience. However, the landlord has acknowledged these errors with its communication, timing, and acknowledged that it should have acted sooner, which was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. In the resident’s escalation request email of 28 November 2022, he advised the landlord of his vulnerabilities and the effect the issue was having on him. The landlord accepted this information when reviewing the compensation. The loss of bathroom compensation applied was 10% for 9.3 weeks, starting from 18 July 2022 when it admitted it should have completed the repairs until it resolved the drainage issue. This compensation element equated to £119.69. This was in line with its compensation policy, as the resident still had reasonable access to other amenities in the bathroom and his issue from the outset in his reports were with the toilet. Although he added that toilet water had been splashing onto other items, the policy says it starts from 5% of the weekly rent. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it was therefore appropriate it used its discretion to increase this to 10% of the weekly rent in these circumstances.
  6. This Service acknowledges the resident feels his bathroom use was limited. He told the landlord after he exhausted its internal complaints procedure that he uses his bathroom to exercise. As he could not exercise in the bathroom during the time he was affected, he did not get full use or enjoyment from the bathroom. Landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues accordingly, so evidence should be provided at the earliest opportunity and before they exhaust the internal complaints procedure.
  7. Under this Service’s remedies guidance, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure, considering the severity of the situation and the length of time involved as well as other relevant factors, such as vulnerabilities. In its final response the total award for time, trouble and inconvenience amounted to £550. Due to the prolonged period, he experienced toilet issues and the effort expended, this was a fair and reasonable offer to put things right and inline with what this Service would expect due to the detriment to the resident.
  8. The landlord had also identified points of learning in both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses of its internal complaint procedure. At stage 1 it noted it could use the resident’s experience to understand improvements it needed to make. It had spoken with its contractors who told it that drain maintenance works would take place every 2 to 3 months. As a result, it would ensure drains stay in working order and it had the right measures in place to resolve any similar issues quickly.
  9. At stage 2, the landlord recognised its record keeping was poor, as not all calls, he had made were recorded, and discussed this issue in meetings to make improvements. It had provided feedback to its contractors, so they were acting in line with its repairs policy. It was also proactively looking at ways it could improve its repairs service, including hiring new staff. Positively, the landlord had demonstrated that it could learn from outcomes, as per the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, which was appropriate.
  10. Overall, although the landlord could have prevented further detriment to the resident sooner than it did, it acknowledged its service failures. It took action to resolve the issue, learned from outcomes and the compensation offered for the drainage issue affecting the resident’s toilets which amounted to £669.69 (excluding compensation for complaint handling) was fair and reasonable. The offer recognised the frustration experienced by the resident for the delay in resolving the matter, and the time, trouble and inconvenience caused. As such, this Service finds reasonable redress regarding the compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues affecting his toilet.

Compensation for complaint handling

  1. The landlord offered £100 in compensation for its complaint handling, that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. 
  2. The landlord was not explicit as to what made up £100 for its complaint handling failures. Though that is not in itself a failure, it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide clear reasons when something has gone wrong. This is a way of acknowledging the failure, accepting responsibility for it as well as expressing regret that it occurred.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) issued in 2022, says that a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed. A stage 1 complaint response must also contain escalation rights. It is noted that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 19 August 2022 did not include escalation rights. Instead, it said it would follow up with the next steps in a future response. There was also a 29 working days delay since is stage 1 complaint response, until the resident received escalation rights to stage 2 of its complaints process. This was inappropriate as it was outside the parameters of the Code.
  4. From the information provided, there is also evidence that the resident tried to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 14 September 2022. It would have been appropriate for it to consider this request if it had already provided a stage 1 complaint response. However, it issued a follow up response to its stage 1 complaint response, and the resident accepted this at the time, so it is reasonable to say this had not caused detriment.
  5. After receiving the stage 1 follow up complaint response on 30 September 2022, the resident escalated his complaint on 22 October 2022 by phone. The resident then sent an email on 28 November 2022. His complaint was first acknowledged at stage 2 on 29 November 2022. Although there was a delay in acknowledging the complaint, the landlord evidenced it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. The resident’s escalation request was outside the 10-day escalation time limit set by the landlord, but it still entered the complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaint process, which was fair and reasonable.
  6. Given the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make an award to recognise a service failure that has caused distress and inconvenience, or time and trouble. In this case, the failures caused delays and time and trouble expended by the resident. However, beyond 22 September 2022, it would not have caused further detriment to the drainage issue affecting his toilet. Ultimately, the resident has accepted this compensation element of the final complaint response. Additionally, the total compensation offered by the landlord of £100 for its complaint handling is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is considered proportionate given the circumstances of the case. Hence, this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s compensation offer for its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in its handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues affecting his toilet, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress for its complaint handling, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not been paid already, the landlord is recommended to re-offer the £769.69 in compensation as it set out in its stage 2 complaint response. This total is to be paid directly to the resident’s bank account and is made up of:
    1. £669.69 for the drainage issues affecting the resident’s toilet.
    2. £100 for the landlord’s complaint handling.