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

Peabody Trust (202228956)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228956

Peabody Trust

12 April 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 installation of level access door sets and windows during the refurbishment of the resident’s property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives with his wife who has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a bungalow. The resident’s wife has had cerebral palsy since birth which means she can only self-propel her wheelchair using her right side.
  2. The landlord’s contractor started the installation of new doors and windows at the resident’s property in May 2021. Due to the resident’s wife’s disabilities, the landlord had contacted an occupational therapist who had provided details of what handles and locks were needed on the doors and windows.
  3. On 29 August 2021 the resident complained by email to the CEO of the landlord. The resident explained in his email about problems with the doors including defective parts, the wrong locks and the threshold being too high for his wife to self-propel her wheelchair. He also listed problems with the windows including handles not being provided so the fitters had to screw the windows closed. This meant the resident and his wife were unable to open their windows during a two-week heat wave. Scaffolding had been erected on the wheelchair ramp which due to delays meant there was no wheelchair access into the garden for the resident’s wife from late May 2021 to the end of July 2021. The resident also commented on long delays to roofing and soffit repairs.
  4. In his complaint the resident also referenced how the work had not been coordinated which meant it was taking a lot longer to complete the refurbishment. The resident expressed how this, and the unannounced appointments and cancelled appointments impacted upon him and his wife due to the morning routine they had due to the resident’s wife’s disabilities. The resident highlighted the poor communication from the contractor which meant workers arrived at the property unsure what they needed to do. The contractor’s poor communication meant the resident was not getting responses as needed and resulted in him having to contact the landlord.
  5. On 2 December 2021 the landlord provided a response that said the communication with the contractor should have been better. The landlord stated that part of the frustration and inconvenience caused would have come from not being kept informed. It said it had highlighted the importance of communication to the contractor and that there were lessons to be learned from the resident’s experience. The landlord offered a goodwill gesture of £150. This was not a formal complaint response.
  6. On 5 December 2021 the resident declined the £150. He stated making changes to the landlord’s project planning to avoid any other disabled tenants having the same problems was more important. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction that the response to his complaint did not even address the main issues that he raised, and that the landlord had not used a specialist contractor for the refurbishments on their property. The doors that had been modified had developed more faults.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2022. It stated it had fitted the locks and controls specified by the occupational therapist. The landlord confirmed that its contractor had difficulties fitting the locks, so another contractor had been used. It confirmed there were defects with the front door, but it had been advised they could be repaired so would not replace the doors. It stated it appreciated the resident’s comments but upheld the decision it had made. In the resident’s reply to this, he stated he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The landlord had not addressed that it had not replaced the level thresholds at his property with level thresholds during the refurbishment. The resident urged the landlord to ‘do the right thing’ in line with its values and get level access door sets installed by a specialist contractor.
  8. On 1 September 2022 the landlord responded to the resident repeating what it had said previously. It also advised the resident to contact the occupational therapist to organise an assessment if he thought changes were needed.
  9. The landlord provided its final response on 27 September 2022. It acknowledged there had been some problems with the locks on the doors and another contractor had to be used. There had been some defects in the draught strip and the edge of the door frame. The landlord did not think the resident had level thresholds before the refurbishment and said the new threshold was Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant. The landlord stated its contractors go through a vigorous procurement exercise to ensure they have the necessary skills and qualifications. It advised the occupational therapist did not make any recommendations for level thresholds; however, the contractor had tried to lower the threshold. The landlord apologised for the delays, inconvenience and frustration caused and said changes were being introduced to its complaints process. It offered the resident £100 compensation, and it was willing to repair the draught extractor as previously offered.
  10. The resident reluctantly agreed to his case being closed pending completion of repairs to the existing doors. This was done in the latter half of February 2023. The resident subsequently contacted this Service as in resolution of his complaint, he wants the landlord to install new front and back door sets with level thresholds as defined in the first part of Approved document M, Volume 1: Dwellings.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the installation of level access door sets and windows during the refurbishment of the resident’s property.

  1. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states “When we are programming to undertake planned internal refurbishment works at our properties we will consult residents and survey their home to identify if there any existing adaptations which may require replacing as part of this work”.
  2. Document M, Volume 1: Dwellings of the Building Regulations defines an accessible threshold as “a threshold that is level, or if raised, has a total height of not more than 15mm, a minimum number of upstands and slopes and with any upstands higher than 5mm chamfered”.
  3. On 17 February 2021 the landlord’s contractor carried out a survey on the resident’s property prior to the start of the refurbishment work. The survey report listed “none” for “cills” to the front and back doors. Notes for the back door stated, “no cill ramped t/hold”. This evidence showed that there were no 15mm thresholds prior to the refurbishment of the property. It was reasonable and fair for the resident and his wife to expect that the same thresholds that were in place prior to the refurbishment would be part of the new installation.
  4. When the resident disputed the new 15mm thresholds the landlord said that the occupational therapist had not stated the need for level thresholds as part of the refurbishment. However, the communication from the occupational therapist was not a report on the requirements of the refurbishment. It was an email about the resident’s wife’s disability in relation to window handles and door locks. The occupational therapist provided recommendations on electric window openings controlled by push buttons or remote controls and electronic door locks that can be locked and unlocked with remote fobs. From the occupational therapist’s email there was no evidence to suggest she had been asked about thresholds. There was no evidence to suggest she would need to reference this in an email about window openings and door locks. The email stated, “further to our recent conversation I can confirm that due to her disability [resident’s wife] is unable to open/close the windows in her property” and went on to detail these requirements.
  5. The landlord stated that the 15mm thresholds were sufficient and met access requirements. This was not fair or reasonable as not all wheelchair users have the same abilities. The resident had informed the landlord that his wife could only use her right side to self-propel her wheelchair due to her disability. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord should have taken a customer-focused approach and looked at the resident’s wife’s individual needs. It would have been appropriate and reasonable for the landlord to get clarity from the occupational therapist regarding the thresholds. The landlord contacted the occupational therapy department in April 2021 and May 2021 when it needed more detail on the specification of the door locks and window handles. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s view, it could have done the same regarding the thresholds. This would have been a resolution-focused approach and could have resolved the dispute regarding the thresholds.
  6. In an internal email on 13 September 2022 the landlord acknowledged that if the access was level previously that it should be replacing it like for like. The landlord also acknowledged that if the occupational therapist was contacted about the thresholds, it was likely that level access would be recommended. It suggested that this was looked at realistically and that the right thing was done now. In the Ombudsman’s view, this would have been reasonable and fair. It would have provided a resolution-focused approach, but the landlord did not take this action.
  7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 December 2022 and 27 January 2023 about the definition of an accessible threshold as defined by Document M, Volume 1: Dwellings of the Building Regulations. The landlord made no reference to this information in its replies to the resident. The resident advised the landlord it had not addressed his comments about this document. He received an acknowledgment saying it was reviewing this email and it would reply shortly. However, the landlord did not reply. Therefore, it did not address the resident’s points about Document M. The definition of an accessible threshold in this document evidenced it was possible to have a level threshold and that the resident’s claims that his new threshold was not the same as the last one were plausible. It was unreasonable and unfair that the landlord did not address the resident’s comments regarding this document especially when the resident had stated the impact the new thresholds were having on his wife.
  8. When the resident advised the contractor about the new thresholds being too high, the contractor lowered the thresholds. This was a reasonable and appropriate response to the situation. However, the lower thresholds caused water ingress. When trying to find a solution to this problem, emails between the landlord and contractor showed the resident’s concern about his wife’s ability to self-propel over the raised thresholds was not being taken into consideration. This was because the solution offered was to raise the thresholds again which was the very issue the resident was complaining about. The landlord had said the thresholds needed to be raised again because the lower thresholds were causing problems with the sealing and water ingress. On 22 February 2023 in an email to the landlord a contractor advised “concrete someone had put in place to help with the ramp situation in fact caused the drainage to be blocked” which could have accounted for why water was not draining in the same way it had with the previous threshold.
  9. The resident and his wife experienced a lot of problems and delays during the refurbishment. Window openers were not provided when the windows were first installed so the windows had to be screwed closed. This meant the resident could not open the windows for 2 weeks during a heat wave. When the window openers were installed, they were not fitted correctly. Another contractor changed the window switches and moved the spurs from the window cills as they had been installed in the wrong place. Due to these errors, additional work was needed to fill holes and paint the window boards which meant more inconvenience to the resident and his wife. The evidence showed that the contractor had not coordinated fitting the windows, the electrical mains for the windows and the electrical openers. This caused more delays, appointments and inconvenience for the resident and his wife.
  10. The front and back doors were both fitted with the wrong locks. The back door was fitted with an outside handle that could override the remote locking system so it had to be locked by key which the resident’s wife could not turn. This affected the resident’s wife’s ability to secure the property independently. The front door had defects in the draught strip and the edge of the frame. The evidence showed that the resident was still chasing a front door number to be installed 16 months after the refurbishment started.
  11. Scaffolding was put on the property’s disabled ramp and was in place from late May to the end of July. This meant the resident’s wife was unable to access the back garden during this period. The evidence showed there were appointments that contractors did not turn up for. There were also appointments that were abandoned due to the workers not having the correct parts or they had not been appropriately briefed. An electrician turned up to complete a job but could not do so because he was not qualified to use the mains supply. In an email to the landlord on 2 September 2021 a contractor stated a worker had “left hanging wires and a mess to the windows” which it acknowledged would have caused a hazard to the resident.
  12. The number of appointments that were missed, needed to be rearranged and occurred without prior arrangement caused stress and inconvenience to the resident and his wife because they had a morning routine which accommodated the resident’s wife’s disability. In an email to the landlord on 29 August 2021 the resident highlighted the impact the problems were having on him and his wife. He stated: “we are amazed and dismayed that those responsible for the day-to-day management of the works, on a bungalow in which a disabled person was already living, did not perceive that it would be appropriate to tightly coordinate the works so as to minimise disruption for the disabled person. We were rarely given specific dates for a particular part of the refurbishment. Like many disabled tenants we have a morning routine that accommodates my wife’s disabilities. Having workers arrive unannounced during the morning is very stressful. To change that routine day after day but have no one turn up to work on the bungalow is very demoralising”.
  13. Despite the resident highlighting the impact this was having on him and his wife, the disruption and problems with the coordination of work continued. This occurred for the whole duration of the refurbishment. The same problems occurred when the contractor came to carry out the stage 2 complaint response remedial work on 24 November 2022. The contractor attended with the wrong part and had not been briefed about the back door sealing. The contractor did not attend with an electrician who was needed to disconnect the remote locking. This meant the doors could not be removed for the work to be carried out. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord and its contractors to fully brief staff and coordinate work to ensure the correct trades and materials were available for appointments. This is to minimise disruption to residents.
  14. The resident experienced further inconvenience as he had to repeatedly chase the landlord and contractors for updates and appointments. In the Ombudsman’s view, the resident should not have had to do this. The evidence showed the resident was fair and patient in his communication with the landlord. The resident acknowledged there would be some disruption, but it was evident that the landlord and contractors took advantage of the resident’s patience and politeness.
  15. The refurbishment work took 22 months to complete. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was an unacceptable and unreasonable length of time. While the Ombudsman notes that some time may have elapsed as the landlord considered the resident’s requests, this was not the cause of significant delay. The evidence shows the delays were caused by problems with communication, skillsets of contractors and the way in which the work was coordinated. It was also an unacceptable and unreasonable length of time given the resident had repeatedly advised the landlord about the detriment caused to his wife.
  16. On 29 August 2021 the resident told the landlord that “Our accessible bungalow was transformed into a prison for my wife in an instant!”. On 20 May 2022 the resident advised the landlord that due to the higher thresholds his wife “has given up on a social interaction she used to enjoy, wheeling herself out of the front door for a natter with the neighbours”. On 29 May 2022 the resident advised the landlord that “remedial modifications of completely wrong doorsets still leaves us with thresholds higher than before. The greater effort my wife needs to exert to cross these thresholds has deterred her from going outside unaided; the whole purpose of the remote unlocking system specified by the OT was to facilitate independent movement in and out of our home for my wife”.
  17. Due to the problems the resident was experiencing he repeatedly requested that the landlord appoint a specialist contractor with a proven track record in supplying and fitting DDA compliant domestic front and back doors. This was a reasonable request because of the problems the resident was experiencing. Despite the landlord stating in the stage 2 complaint response that contractors “go through a rigorous procurement exercise to ensure that they have the necessary skills and qualifications to carry out the works that are assigned to them”, there was evidence to show the contractor did not have the appropriate experience for the work.
  18. On 14 May 2021 the contractor stated in an email to the landlord that they “may have to get a specialist company to provide the doors and the hardware”. A contractor advised the landlord in an email on 22 September 2021 that they had advised the resident “that this type of install is new to us, it is a lot of trial and error”. On 8 December 2021 an internal landlord email stated that the resident was “happy with my explanation of how this experience will improve our procedures on future projects like this”. An internal landlord email on 27 May 2022 said the contractor had “some difficulties” installing the locks so had used another contractor to complete the installation for them. On 26 January 2023 an internal landlord email said, “have we not got to the point where we sack off the contractor and get someone in who knows what they are doing?”.
  19. The evidence shows there were several missed opportunities for the landlord to reconsider its approach and “put things right” which is one of the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. In the Ombudsman’s view, given the circumstances, it would have been appropriate and reasonable for the landlord to have appointed a specialist contractor for this work.
  20. The evidence showed the landlord’s project team experienced difficulties with the contractor. On 25 October 2022 an internal email stated that getting a response from the contractor was “proving challenging”. The contractor was asked on 3 October 2022 to complete the stage 2 complaint response remedial works. The contractor was chased twice by the landlord to complete this work but did not reply until 15 November 2022 which was 31 working days later. Despite the many problems that occurred with the refurbishment work at the resident’s property and the delays in responses, the landlord did not hold the contractor to account. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord should have taken action to hold its contractor to account for the delays and problems. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights states, “Landlords should consider ways to improve their management of contractors so they have better oversight of their appointments with residents, which would assist in clarifying any disputes”.
  21. The lack of accountability at the landlord also contributed to the problems the resident experienced. In the Ombudsman’s view, there was a carry-on regardless approach to the resident’s refurbishment with decisions and delays not being challenged internally. When internal departments struggled to get information from the project team to be able to respond to the resident, this should have been escalated within the landlord.
  22. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident and his wife by the landlord’s handling of the installation of level access door sets and windows during the refurbishment of the resident’s property, the landlord should award the resident £1,000 in compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  23. Amongst other orders, the landlord is required to install level thresholds at the front and back doors of the resident’s property, as specified in the first part of the accessible threshold definition in Document M, Volume 1: Dwellings of the Building Regulations, using a specialist contractor. If the specialist contractor or an occupational therapist determine a level threshold will not work with the current door sets (for reasons such as the creation of gaps, draughts, or water ingress for example), the landlord should replace the whole door sets where it is unable to find a practical solution to overcome the identified issue. Any fix imposed should ensure that the level threshold is still achieved. Any door sets that are replaced must be fitted with remote locking and unlocking as the occupational therapist stated.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The resident made his initial complaint to the CEO on 29 August 2021. However, this was not recognised as a stage 1 complaint which was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy which states “new complaints are logged within 5 working days as a stage one complaint”. It was also not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The resident’s correspondence should have been logged as a formal complaint given that the resident had clearly expressed his dissatisfaction. As per the Code, “the resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such”. Evidence shows that there was a clear failure to recognise this and as a result, an informal landlord response was sent to the resident on 2 December 2021 – following several prompts from the resident – and 67 working days after the resident had made the initial complaint.
  2. The landlord’s failure to commence its complaint process meant that there was no reference to a complaint stage in the landlord’s response and no details were provided on how to escalate the complaint if dissatisfied with the response. This was not in line with the Code. The Code states the complaint stage and details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 must be included in a stage 1 response. The landlord also did not address all the points in the resident’s complaint. The Code states that the landlord must address all points raised in complaints. By not addressing all the points the resident made, the landlord also did not follow the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of being fair, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The landlord was not fair to the resident as it did not answer his concerns and by not addressing the issues it did not enable itself to put things right or for it to learn from outcomes.
  3. The resident made another complaint by email to the CEO on 20 May 2022 which he also re-sent on 23 May 2022. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s email on 24 May 2022. A stage 1 response was subsequently issued on 28 July 2022 which was 45 working days later. This was not in line with its policy or the Code. During this time the resident had repeatedly chased the landlord for a response. The delay in sending a response was not fair as it delayed the resident in being able to process his complaint through the internal complaints process and getting resolution. There was no reference to a complaint stage in the landlord’s response and no details were provided on how to escalate the complaint if dissatisfied with the response. This was not in line with the Code.
  4. Reference to the resident being able to escalate his complaint to stage 2 did not come until a further response from the landlord was received on 1 September 2022. This email was sent 24 working days after the previous response and again did not refer to the current stage of the complaint. This was not in line with the Code which states “landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. It is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘pre-complaint stage’) as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents”. While the landlord’s previous responses did not have names, the landlord had inappropriately and unfairly added several responses within the process before the resident was advised he could escalate his complaint to stage 2.
  5. The remedies from the stage 2 complaint response were agreed by both parties on 28 September 2022. The landlord said on 28 September 2022 that it would ask for the repairs to be expedited but this did not happen. The remedies were not completed until the latter half of February 2023 which was over 4 calendar months later. This was not a reasonable length of time. The landlord’s complaints policy states “All actions that are agreed to be completed within a complaint’s response will be monitored and followed through to resolution with updates to the complainant provided as and when needed”. Despite this, the landlord did not act in line with its policy as this did not happen. The resident had to chase the landlord on 24 October 2022, 14 November 2022, and 5 December 2022 for updates and to remind the landlord these works needed to be carried out.
  6. The landlord was aware of its complaints handling failures as on 7 December 2022 in an internal email the landlord stated, “should the customer escalate this concern to the Ombudsman we will not be in a good position”. Despite identifying this, the problems being encountered were not escalated within the landlord and the landlord made no effort to “put things right” in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  7. The Ombudsman has concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to award £250 for its complaints handling failures in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the installation of level access door sets during the refurbishment of the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,250 and provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The compensation is comprised of:
    1. £1,000 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the installation of level access door sets and windows during the refurbishment of the resident’s property.
    2. £250 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord is ordered to install level thresholds at the front and back doors of the resident’s property, as specified in the first part of the accessible threshold definition in Document M, Volume 1: Dwellings of the Building Regulations, using a contractor specialising in DDA compliant domestic threshold and door installations. If the specialist contractor or an occupational therapist determine a level threshold will not work with the current door sets (for reasons such as the creation of gaps, draughts, or water ingress for example), the landlord should replace the whole door sets where it is unable to find a practical solution to overcome the identified issue. Any fix imposed should ensure that the level threshold is still achieved. Any door sets that are replaced must be fitted with remote locking and unlocking as the occupational therapist stated. The landlord must comply with this order within 3 months of the date of the report.
  3. The landlord is ordered to send a written apology to the resident and his wife from the CEO for the failings they have experienced as identified in this report. The letter must acknowledge the detriment and inconvenience experienced by the resident and especially his wife. The landlord must provide this Service with a copy of the letter it has sent within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  4. The landlord must carry out a case review with the teams involved in this case to identify where lessons can be learned. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report it must provide evidence to this Service that action has been taken to reduce the likelihood of similar failings.

 

 

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should carry out complaint handling refresher training with its staff to include details about its own complaints policy timescales and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.