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

Peabody Trust (202230049)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230049

Peabody Trust

28 May 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair reports and complaint about her new home following a mutual exchange.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She started her tenancy on 28 May 2022 following a mutual exchange with the previous tenant. Three repair issues are noted in the exchange deed of assignment. They relate to the landlord’s responsibility to supply and fit: a loft hatch, “polysafe flooring” in the kitchen, and a hinge to a cupboard door.
  2. On 11 June 2022 the resident emailed the landlord about repair issues. These related to a broken power socket, doorframe, hole in wall in the bedroom, loft hatch broken, lifting bathroom floor, bathroom basin cracked, and the bathtub had no enamel. She said she had been having difficulty raising the repairs through the relevant channels because the landlord still had the previous tenant in its records.
  3. The resident sent a complaint to the landlord on 16 June 2022. She said she had moved into the property on 6 June and discovered a range of repair and maintenance issues she had not previously been aware of. These repairs included a cracked bathroom sink, holes in a bedroom wall, the bath was in a poor condition and dirty, every kitchen cupboard was broken, the gas supply was capped, there was no hot water, and a power socket was damaged. She said the repairs had led to her losing income. She wanted the landlord to address the repairs and restore the gas.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint, and explained that all repair jobs had been raised and would be resolved as soon as possible.
  5. On 28 June 2022 the resident sent a further complaint. She added further repair and cleanliness issues.
  6. The landlord sent what it said was its stage one complaint response on 4 July 2022. It referred to an previous email exchange in which it said it had provided information about the planned repairs. And explained how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  7. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 5 July 2022 because she had experienced a gas leak. She said the landlord should have checked the gas supply before she moved in. In a separate email she reported exposed wiring, and asked the landlord to apologise for the poor condition of the property and compensate her.
  8. The landlord’s repair records show its operatives and contractors did work on the water heater, bath, bathroom flooring, power socket, and front door in July and August 2022. The records show these repairs as being completed.
  9. The landlord sent its escalated response on 7 September 2022. It confirmed that the property had been inspected prior to the exchange, and found to be in an appropriate condition, apart from three repair issues which it said were intended to be addressed after the resident moved in. It acknowledged its inspection did not identify repair issues which she subsequently reported. It said this was a failing on its part, and these additional issues should have been advised to the resident at the time of the exchange. It listed multiple repairs which it said its records showed had now been completed, and two outstanding ones for a garden fence, and bathroom floor coverings. It acknowledged that it had handled the resident’s first complaint poorly and had not provided an appropriate response. It also acknowledged the resident had had poor experiences making the repair reports, and its delays responding to them. It referred the resident to its mutual exchange policy conditions regarding tenants’ responsibilities and obligations, and what that meant for the resident, but apologised for its own failings and the distress and inconvenience caused to her. It explained the lessons it had learnt from her complaint, and offered her £750 compensation for her time and trouble, its poor complaint handling, and its poor communication with her. It advised that this was its final complaint response, and referred the resident to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
  10. The resident responded to the landlord disputing that the repair work it had listed had been completed, and disputing the level of compensation. The landlord acknowledged there was a discrepancy between what its records said had been completed, and what she said remained incomplete. It said it would arrange an inspection to clarify the remaining work, and would further review her complaint once the repairs were clarified and arranged. It said it would keep the resident updated as the repairs progressed.
  11. The evidence shows that the landlord inspected and arranged further works in regard to the loft hatch, door, bathroom and kitchen in September and October 2022, and follow up work in November. The loft hatch was the last issue to be resolved, which was done in January 2023. In the same period the resident complained again about the time the work had taken to be completed, and asked for some of her rent to be refunded in recognition of the disruption the repairs had caused.
  12. The landlord sent its further complaint review on 31 January 2023. It explained that all of the listed repairs had now been completed, but apologised for further delays in doing so. It explained why some of the additional delays had occurred, and reiterated what it had learnt from the resident’s complaint and experiences. It apologised for not responding to correspondence from the resident’s advocate, and explained why that had happened. It explained why it would not provide a rent refund, and how the resident could make a personal injury claim with its insurers (the resident had previously said she had hurt herself because of some of the repairs). However, it also increased its compensation to £900 in recognition of its further delays and poor communication. It again referred the resident to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
  13. The resident remained dissatisfied and corresponded with the landlord again. The landlord maintained that the final compensation it had offered was reasonable. It further explained that none of the repair issues the resident had experienced had bene reported to it by the previous tenant, and that the kitchen floor issue had been inspected and found to be in a reasonable condition.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. The Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate a complaint which is made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has referred to several issues which did not clearly form part of her formal complaint to the landlord. These include issues such as insulation, EPC certificates, gas and electrical certificates, and further repair issues. The evidence shows that some of these matters were raised as queries or requests with the landlord during the period considered in this investigation. It also shows responses by the landlord to the resident in regard to them. The resident has said that some of the other issues have been raised as separate complaints.
  2. As these issues were not raised specifically as part of the resident’s formal complaint they will not be considered in this investigation. The investigation centres on the matters raised in the resident’s original complaint to the landlord in June 2022, and in her escalated complaint in July.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s repair reports and complaint about her new home following a mutual exchange

  1. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that the landlord “will ensure our property has valid gas and electrical certificates before approving the exchange and will arrange for the necessary checks to obtain them. We won’t allow the mutual exchange to proceed until any required works have been completed and the valid gas and electrical certificates are obtained…We will inspect the condition of the property to identify any repairs that may be needed and any damage or alterations that have been made. We notify both the outgoing and incoming tenant of any repairs that they will be responsible for or that need to be carried out after the move takes place…We will maintain responsibility for any landlord repair obligations, and will complete any repairs that are our responsibility when they are reported to us, before the exchange takes place, unless the surveyor advises in their report that the repairs can be carried out once the new tenant has moved in…We will require the outgoing tenant to repair any damage, neglect or alterations that they, their household or their visitors have made to the property and to complete any repairs that we consider to be their responsibility. These should be completed before the exchange.
  2. The policy sets out that “Incoming tenants agree to accept the condition of the property they are exchanging to. They are responsible for carrying out their own inspection of the property prior to the exchange, and for making any agreements or arrangements regarding the condition of the property with the outgoing tenant…Following the exchange, incoming tenants will assume responsibility for any damage or alterations made to the property by the outgoing tenant and for all repairs that we consider to be the tenant’s responsibility that were not completed by the outgoing tenant. This includes internal decoration or minor repairs needed, cleaning and refuse disposal.”
  3. The resident and previous tenant both signed the mutual exchange deed of assignment confirming that they understood the respective parties’ repair and condition obligations and responsibilities.
  4. The actual tenancy agreement has not been provided for this investigation. However, it is usually an aspect of all tenancy agreements that tenants are responsible for general cleaning and maintenance of their homes.
  5. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out two primary repair categories: emergency (immediate danger to personal health or safety), which are to be attended to within 24 hours, and routine, which should be completed within 35 days.
  6. Of importance to this complaint is the difference between a ‘void’ process and the mutual exchange process. Usually, when a tenancy starts, the property has been empty and is acquired by a new tenant through an allocations process. Landlords have general obligations to ensure that while a property is empty (void) they undertake any repairs, maintenance, and cleaning necessary to bring the property to a condition appropriate for renting it. The landlord has full responsibility in such circumstances. The nature of mutual exchange means the property is usually not empty between different tenants. In such cases the outgoing tenant has a responsibility to either attend to repair and maintenance issues they might be responsible for, or report to the landlord any repair issues it is responsible for. Outgoing and incoming tenants are responsible for arranging between themselves the resolution of any repairs or maintenance which the tenancy states they are responsible for. Landlords are usually expected to inspect the property themselves to ensure any repairs have been accounted for and are being addressed (either by itself, or by the tenants), but identifying such issues is reliant on the information it is given, especially as the property is occupied and its inspections are limited by that fact.
  7. One aspect of the resident’s complaint to the landlord was about the property’s state of cleanliness when she moved in. In response, the landlord referred her to the mutual exchange policy and the responsibilities of the two mutually exchanging parties in regard to the general condition of the property. The resident has explained she inspected the property. She confirmed in the deed of assignment that she understood and accepted these obligations, and subsequently accepted the property in the condition it was in. Accordingly, in line with general tenancy obligations, the mutual exchange policy, and the deed of assignment, the landlord was not responsible for the state of cleanliness, and its explanation was reasonable.
  8. The resident complained about the large number of repair issues she had discovered upon moving into the property. She said many of these should have been addressed before she moved into the property. These included the faulty water heater, broken loft hatch, holes in a bedroom wall, and the cracked bathroom sink. However, a landlord can only respond to repair issues it is aware of, and tenants are responsible for reporting such matters. The repair records for the property do not show any of the repairs reported by the resident being reported previously. They do include issues relating to the boiler, but not the one the resident later reported. Accordingly, prior to May 2022 (when it inspected the property) the landlord could not have been aware of these repairs as they had not been reported to it.
  9. Part of the landlord’s mutual exchange process involves it inspecting the property prior to the exchange, in order to identify repair issues and the respective responsibilities for them. The landlord did such an inspection of the property on 6 May 2022. It only identified three issues of note, these related to the loft hatch, flooring in the kitchen, and a kitchen cupboard. In light of the wide range of repairs raised by the resident soon after moving in the landlord acknowledged that its inspection had not identified the same problems. It is not apparent from the evidence whether the differences between the resident’s reports and the inspection conclusions were because of shortcomings in the inspection, failure by the previous tenant to raise them during it, or different perceptions of the issues’ significance and importance. Because of that it is not possible for this investigation to determine if there was a service failure in this aspect of the complaint. Nonetheless, the landlord concluded there had been, and it was therefore appropriate it acknowledge it, and apologise.
  10. Having been made aware of the repair issues in mid-June 2022, the landlord’s repair obligation was to inspect the repairs, identify what work was needed, and resolve the issues. It has provided evidence showing work by contractors on several of the jobs in July and August relating to the water heater, bath, power socket, and overhauling the front door. Its complaint response in September stated it had also completed work on some kitchen cupboard hinges, but that it had not agreed there was a need for further work, and had concluded the bath was in a useable condition. It said the loft hatch had also been resolved, but the further evidence shows that was not correct. It acknowledged that three other repairs remained outstanding. All of these repairs appear to be in the landlord’s category for a 35 day resolution target. Three of them have evidence of being completed within that timeframe: the water heater, the bath inspection, and power socket. The other repairs exceeded the landlord’s timescales. There is no evidence of any work in response to the resident’s report about a cracked bathroom basin, or the holes in the bedroom wall. Accordingly, the landlord’s initial handling of the resident’s repair reports was incomplete and most of the work was delayed.
  11. Given the delays, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its poor service, apologise, and explain how it intended to complete the outstanding issues. It also acknowledged the resident had needed to chase the repairs, and that she had been caused inconvenience by the delays. It offered her £550 compensation to reflect that those impacts. That amount was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for the worst cases of service failure causing extensive disruption. It was also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for complaints where wide scale inconvenience and frustration has been caused, over a short to medium period of time, but where there is no long term impact.
  12. In response to the resident disputing that the repairs had been completed, and her reports of poor quality work, it was appropriate for the landlord to undertake a further inspection in September 2022. It updated the resident following the inspection, explaining it had found the need for further work to make safe some cables, make good “dents” in the bedroom wall, and complete the loft hatch. It also reviewed its decisions about the bath and the kitchen cupboards, and agreed to renew them. The evidence shows these particular works, apart from the loft hatch were completed by November. The hatch was completed in January 2023.
  13. These repairs also exceeded the landlord’s 35 day target, but not as significantly as the previous ones. Nonetheless, it was appropriate that the landlord recognised its further delays in its final complaint response in January 2023. Again, it apologised, explained how the delays had occurred, and how it would endeavour to improve its services. It increased its compensation by £150 to reflect the further inconvenience caused and poor communication with the resident while the repairs were in progress. The evidence show that over this period the landlord provided regular updates about its progress, including when there were delays. Regardless, it was appropriate in the circumstances that the landlord provided further remedies for the additional shortcomings it had identified, in line with its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  14. However, there were some repair and communication issues which the landlord did not identify. These included the resident’s report of exposed live wires in her home following a boiler repair. She raised this in her email to the landlord on 11 July 2022 as part of her escalated complaint. There is no clear evidence of the landlord responding to it, but it possibly is the same cabling repair the landlord identified in its September inspection. That work was completed in November. One the face of it, the resident’s report of this issue was a safety risk, and the landlord was obliged to ensure it attended promptly to inspect and make it safe if necessary. There is no clear evidence of it doing so. If the live wires and the cabling issues are the same, then the landlord took from July to September to inspect it. Having done that there was no indication that the issue was a risk. Nonetheless, that was a significant delay in regard to a potentially unsafe situation, and not something the landlord identified in its complaint responses.
  15. The resident raised some issues in her original complaint, and in her complaint to the Ombudsman, which do not have clear resolution, such as the bathroom basin, and the kitchen flooring. The basin was not listed as a repair issue in the landlord’s September 2022 inspection, but there are no references to it being inspected or any conclusions about its condition and or need for repair.
  16. The kitchen flooring was one of the three outstanding issues listed in the original mutual exchange document. The landlord’s evidence show a report from the contractors dated 22 June 2022 stating “works not required”. Despite that, the landlord’s September 2022 complaint response acknowledged it was outstanding and said the necessary work was being arranged. There is no evidence of any updates about this being given to the resident, and it was not part of the September 2022 inspection’s list of repairs. Only in response to the resident’s further queries in February 2023 (following its final complaint response), did the landlord explain its inspections had shown the flooring did not need replacing. This particular issue appears to have dropped off the landlord’s radar when it considered its final response in January 2023. Given it was one of the original repair issues, the landlord’s lack of communication about it was not reasonable, and its explanation in its September 2022 complaint response misleading given the contractor’s report.
  17. The resident complained that the gas supply had been capped at the time she moved in, and also about a subsequent gas leak. She has referred to letters from the utility provider in relation to this, but no details about them have been provided. Incoming tenants are usually responsible for arranging the utility supply in their new home. Any landlord, if it was aware of problems with the gas supply, would be expected to make that known to an incoming tenant, providing what repairs it was responsible for, and any other assistance it could. In this case no evidence has been seen which shows the landlord was, or should have been aware of the gas being capped, or any other gas problems. The repair records prior to the resident moving into the property do not show any such issue, and the property had an up to date gas certificate. It is apparent that the supply was uncapped at some point in June or July 2022, because the resident’s escalated complaint referred to it being capped again due to a gas leak. It is not apparent who addressed that issue, or when. Overall, while the landlord may not have been responsible for the problems the resident experienced, this was clearly an element of her complaint, and the landlord did not respond to it.
  18. In response to the resident’s original complaint the landlord told her it would respond informally. Its first response was exceedingly brief, and showed no actual investigation of or response to the issues of the complaint. That was clearly not reasonable, especially as the landlord’s complaints policy at the time did not include an informal stage. However, in its complaint response in September 2022 the landlord fully acknowledged the inappropriateness of the first response. It apologised, explained how it intended to improve how it responded to complaints, and offered £100 compensation for it, along with £50 for further complaint delays. Notwithstanding the specific omissions or inaccuracies noted above, the landlord’s second complaint response was far more detailed, and the remedies it offered for its poor first response were reasonable and proportionate.
  19. The resident submitted two complaints about the same issues to the landlord in quick succession in June 2022. One appears to have gone to the complaints team, and the second to the CEO’s office. The resident and landlord later referred to a complaint being closed in error. It is not wholly clear from the evidence what occurred. Nonetheless, the landlord recognised it had not handled this aspect of the complaint well, and apologised for it in its September complaint response, offering an additional £50 compensation. Taken together with its other complaint handling failings and remedies, its response to the issue was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in regard to the complaint.

Reasons

  1. There is no evidence that the majority of the repair issues discovered by the resident when she moved into the property had previously been reported to the landlord, or that it was otherwise aware and should have already resolved them. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge that, in light of the number of repairs needed, there was room for improvement in its mutual exchange inspection process. Some of the subsequent repairs were completed in appropriate timescales, but many were not, or required follow-up work. The landlord provided a reasonable level of updates to the resident following its September 2022 complaint investigation, but there was still poor communication in relation to the kitchen flooring. It also failed to consider how it handled the resident’s report of live wires and gas problems, and there is no evidence as to what was done in response to her report about the cracked bathroom basin.
  2. The level of compensation offered and the lessons the landlord explained it had taken from the resident’s experiences were reasonable in regard to the failings it had identified. However, it did not identify or consider several further repair issues, and so the remedies it offered cannot be said to have fully resolved the complaint.

Orders

  1. In light of the failings found in this investigation the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1150. This amount is inclusive of the £900 it previously offered. Evidence of payment must be provided to this Service within four weeks of this report.
  2. In its complaint responses the landlord explained that it had identified a range of lessons to be learnt from the resident’s experiences. Within eight weeks of this report the landlord must provide an update to this Service and the resident, explaining how it has implemented those lessons, and how they have improved the relevant services, particularly in regard to its mutual exchange inspections.