Peabody Trust (202320016)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320016

Peabody Trust

29 July 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 a leak from the roof resulting in damp and mould in the property.
2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, a bedsit, in which he lives with his wife and infant twins. It should be noted that following a merger in April 2023, his current landlord took ownership of the property.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 5 February 2023, stating that it was not the first time he had complained about his leaking roof, and damp and mould in his home. He had raised concerns in December 2022, and again on 19 January 2023, but no action was taken. He was concerned about the safety of the roof particularly as his wife was pregnant. He had telephoned multiple times but was getting no response.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 18 September 2023. It stated that it had been trying to make contact, since 17 August 2023, to find out the condition of the repairs and confirm if its contractor had attended to inspect the leak. As it had not heard from the resident, or been able to discuss the complaint with him, the complaint had been closed. If the resident had any outstanding repairs, he should raise these via its website.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint, via this Service in November 2023, stating that the roof was still leaking and he was still experiencing damp and mould issues.
In its stage 2 response on 26 January 2024, the landlord apologised for its delayed responses and service delivery. It stated that:
1. There had been delays in erecting scaffolding to repair the roof due to access issues to a neighbouring flat.
2. It had replaced extractor fans but had not actioned a mould wash promptly.
3. It acknowledged that the roof was still leaking and had asked its building surveyor to oversee the repairs more closely.
4. The complaint would remain open until the works had been completed and it would consider a rent rebate on completion of the repairs.
5. It provided its insurance details should the resident want to make a liability claim for health and belongings.
6. It offered £1,300 compensation. This comprised £450 for its complaint handling failures, and £850 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to this Service. He stated that 2 different contractors had attended and “condemned the roof”. The roof was still leaking and the damp and mould persisted. He had not been offered alternative accommodation, had to live with relatives, and had not returned to the property since his wife became pregnant. His twins were now 8 months old. He wanted the issues to be resolved, a rent refund from April 2023, and to be provided with alternative accommodation.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s correspondence he stated that the situation had caused stress and impacted his mental health. He also reported damage to his personal belongings due to the leak, damp and mould. This Service has investigated how the landlord has responded to the resident’s concerns and can consider any inconvenience or distress caused as a result of any service failure by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.

Reports of a leak from the roof resulting in damp and mould in the property.

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good order.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs are attended to and completed within 4 hours. Non-urgent repairs, required to rectify a fault are scheduled to the next available resource, and are completed within 28 calendar days. Programmed repairs, where work requires additional time to manufacture, or a specialist trade is required, are completed within 60 calendar days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that no customer should have to live in a home that has damp and mould in it. It aims to provide dry, warm, healthy homes for its tenants. It also states that:
1. It treats reports of damp and mould as urgent repairs. A surveyor will visit a customer’s home where there have been reports of damp and mould within 10 working days.
2. It pro-actively seeks out building defects that contribute to instances of damp and mould and responds swiftly by undertaking necessary repairs as a matter of urgency.
3. Where the work required to the home is extensive, it may temporarily rehouse customers.
The landlord has a responsibility under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leaking roof, and damp and mould. In its stage 2 response it acknowledged and apologised for its service delivery, delays, and offered compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The evidence provided to this Service demonstrated that the resident had reported his concerns on 19 January 2023. He said that he was concerned about the roof as some joists were rotten and some were starting to rot. His wife was pregnant and he was concerned about her safety. He had suffered with damp and mould issues the previous year, he had purchased a dehumidifier, and regularly opened his windows. The roof was leaking and he continued to suffer damp and mould issues. He repeated his concerns in the formal complaint of 5 February 2023.
The landlord’s records between May and July 2023, showed that it had contacted the resident in May stating that its contractor had been experiencing difficulties in reaching him to book an appointment. The contractor attended on 23 May 2023 to erect scaffolding to complete repairs to the roof. However, it had difficulties in accessing the neighbouring flat in order to erect the scaffold. A works order was raised in June to carry out necessary work which was to be completed by 19 July 2023. It continued to experience difficulties accessing the neighbouring flat throughout July 2023.
While the evidence demonstrated that the landlord had sought assistance from its neighbourhoods team in gaining access to the neighbouring flat, there was no evidence provided to suggest it had considered any alternative solutions to the issue. Where a landlord requires access to a property, in order to carry out urgent repairs, the tenancy agreement makes provision for such instances. It could have considered a home visit to discuss the nature of the issue with the neighbour or a tenancy warning letter. Given that the issue persisted for 3 months, it could have considered an access injunction via the courts. It could have also explored whether there was an alternative solution to using scaffold such as a cherry picker.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that it had been trying to contact the resident, since 17 August 2023, to find out the condition of his repairs, and to confirm whether its contractor had attended to inspect the leak. Its contractor had also reported having difficulty making contact to book the inspection. It had sent emails, and as it had not received a response, it was unable to investigate further and the complaint was closed. If he had any current or outstanding repairs, he should report these via its website or customer care line.
The landlord’s response was not reasonable given that the resident had reported his concerns in January and February 2023. There was no evidence provided to this Service, to suggest that it had attempted to contact him prior to May 2023, some 3 months after he had reported his concerns. This was not in line with its damp and mould policy which states that an inspection would be carried out within 10 working days. It should also have been aware, from its own records, the status of the repairs and whether its contractor had in fact inspected the roof, rather than relying on the resident to confirm this. This demonstrates a record keeping failure.
On 18 September 2023 the resident asked for an update on the roof stating that this should have been completed in May 2023. He stated that the leak had ruined the paintwork and flooring in his home and he had been reporting the issue for over a year. He also sent photographs, requested by the landlord, of the mould in his kitchen cupboards.
The landlord’s records between October and November 2023 referred to arranging an appointment to inspect the roof leak and complete a mould wash behind the kitchen cupboards. It wrote to the resident on 23 November 2023, following contact from this Service, stating that the matter seemed to be an ongoing issue. Records also showed the following:
1. On 11 December 2023 it was chasing internally for answers to when the roof leak was resolved and reasons for the delays. It enquired as to whether the roof required replacing, if the mould wash and kitchen issues had been resolved, and whether an inspection had been carried out in relation to the flooring.
2. On 15 December 2023 it stated that the leak had not been resolved and the mould wash had not been picked up by its contractor straight away. It had been having difficulties contacting the resident. A mould wash had, however, been completed on 23 August 2023. It had booked an appointment with the resident to inspect the flooring and a further mould wash.
3. On 16 January 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident and stated that the roof would be inspected on 19 January 2024.
The evidence demonstrated that the landlord was unaware of what works had been completed and that it had failed to monitor the situation over a prolonged period of time. The roof had been leaking for over a year since the resident first reported the issue in January 2023. There was no evidence to suggest that the roof had been inspected previously during this time. While this Service appreciates that there was difficulty contacting the resident, the considerable delays in inspecting and completing external works was not appropriate.
In a conversation between the parties in December 2023, the resident had stated that he had contacted the landlord in March 2023 to request temporary accommodation, and subsequently had to stay with family and friends. In its email requesting an extension of the timescale to respond, it confirmed this additional issue. While this Service does not dispute the resident’s assertion that he contacted the landlord in March 2023, there was no evidence provided by either party to confirm this. However, the landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will consider temporary re-housing where work to the property is extensive. There was no evidence to show that the landlord had considered this as an option whilst dealing with the resident’s reports and no reference was made to this in its complaint responses.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that following receipt of the resident’s complaint on 5 February 2023, it made contact on 11 May 2023 and requested contact details as it was experiencing difficulty reaching him. It apologised for its delayed response and accepted that the delay was not reasonable. It had addressed this with its team as part of lessons learnt. It also stated that:
1. It had made contact on 13 June 2023 and arranged a mould wash for the following day.
2. Following its stage 1 response of 18 September 2023, the complaint was closed as it had made several attempts to contact the resident. It appreciated that further efforts should have been made.
3. On the same date, he provided photographs to its building surveyor of the kitchen cupboards and mould.
4. On 27 October 2023, he contacted again and explained that he had received a call and was unsure if this related to an appointment to inspect the property.
5. It apologised for its service delivery following his reports of damp and mould. It had noted that there were delays in erecting the scaffold to repair the roof and issues with accessing the neighbouring flat in May 2023.
6. It noted that the extractor fan in the kitchen and bathroom were changed for continuous models on 28 August 2023. A mould treatment was part of the action plan and this was not actioned promptly.
7. He had requested a new kitchen, and it explained that the units could be dismantled, rather than replaced as he had requested.
8. He had explained that the roof was still leaking. It was sorry as there had been a level of confusion whereby it had previously stated that the roof leak had been resolved. This related to a different repair relating to drainage as opposed to the roof. It had raised the roof matter to its contractors, who confirmed that there had again been issues with access in terms of the roof repair and as such the repairs had not been completed. It had asked its building surveyor to oversee the repairs more closely and also requested its neighbourhood team to assist with access if there are any further problems.
9. The complaint would remain open until the necessary works to the roof and his home had been completed. It would also consider a rent rebate due to the repair related issues and it would issue a further response to confirm the offer upon completion of the repairs.
10. It acknowledged that the resident had explained that his wife was pregnant and his concerns about health. It empathised that the situation would have been distressing and apologised for any inconvenience caused. It also noted that he had referred to his damaged belongings due to the leak and provided its insurance details should he with to make a liability claim for health or belongings.
11. It offered £1,300 compensation comprising £450 for complaint handling and £850 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
12. Feedback had been provided to the relevant area of service to ensure that further action was taken at an earlier stage, including a surveyor inspection and for access issues to be managed more effectively.
Following its stage 2 response the landlord’s records showed that:
1. The repairs should have been completed in 2023. It had attended in December 2023 and January 2024 but was unable to gain access. It had re-booked for 13 January 2024, in relation to the kitchen cupboards, to carry out a mould wash behind the units. However, the resident had not allowed this to proceed as he wanted an entirely new kitchen, which had not been approved.
2. Further records for January 2024 referred to inspecting the resident’s home once the leak had been resolved as there may be further internal damage given the length of time the leak had been ongoing. It referred to the roof repair needing to be completed and assistance to gain access.
3. Further records referred to the surveyor completing a post works inspection on 10 May 2024. It is not known whether this relates to the roof or damp and mould works.
The landlord’s response recognised its failings in relation to the delays and service delivery, it apologised, and offered compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience. It also appropriately directed the resident to its insurance department in relation to this health concerns and damage to personal belongings. However, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports as follows:
1. While it demonstrated learning from the complaint, it continued to delay in carrying out the required work or resolve the access issues.
2. It stated that it would provide a further response, on completion of the repairs, and consider a rent rebate. However, the landlord confirmed to this Service, that it had not sent a further response as its delivery manager had left. It also stated that the case was still being monitored suggesting that the complaint was still open and works had not been completed.
3. Its compensation offer of £850 was not proportionate to the delays in completing the repairs or detriment experienced by the resident.
4. It failed to give due regard to its obligations under HHSRS, leaving the resident with a leaking roof, and damp and mould conditions, for over a year.
This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published October 2021, provides recommendations for landlords which set out 26 recommendations which included:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitable qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
There was no evidence that the landlord had undertaken a thorough survey of the resident’s home to identify the extent of the damp and mould or damage which may have been caused. This Service empathises that the delays in completing repairs caused distress to the resident and his family. The landlord’s delays were not appropriate or in line with its repairs policy or damp and mould policy principles.
It is not known whether the repairs have been completed to the roof or the extent of repairs carried out to the resident’s home in relation to the damp and mould. However, he reports that the roof leak is ongoing and the property continues to suffer from damp and mould. This Service concludes that the landlord failed to provide reasonable redress to the resident’s complaint and resolve the ongoing repairs and, therefore, finds maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports.

Associated formal complaint.

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days. If it requires more time to respond, it will provide an explanation to the resident and a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed 10 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required, this should be agreed by both parties.
Its is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s responses and complaint handling. In its stage 2 response it apologised for the delays and offered £450 compensation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 January 2023 to report his concerns. The landlord should have considered this as a complaint at the time given that it was a matter which related to outstanding repairs from December 2022.
This Service’s complaint handling code states that the resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. Landlords should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. A service request is a request from a resident to their landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right. Service requests should be recorded, monitored and reviewed regularly. A complaint should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request.
The resident made further contact, via the landlord’s complaint webform on 5 February 2023, expressly stating that he wanted his complaint to be resolved. The complaint was acknowledged on 8 February 2023. The evidence demonstrated that the resident chased on 2 occasions for a response in February 2023. However, there was no evidence provided to this Service to suggest that any further contact was made with the resident until May 2023.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 18 September 2023, 156 working days later and, 146 working days later than its 10-day complaint policy timescale.
Following the intervention of this Service, the landlord confirmed that it would escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 11 November 2023, and it would respond within its normal timescale of 20 working days.
The evidence demonstrated that the landlord extended the timescale to respond on multiple occasions. It stated it would respond by 22 December 2023, 10, 19, and 23 January 2024. This was not in line with its complaint policy timescale of an additional 10 working days. While its policy states that additional time may be required and agreed between the parties, its persistent extensions were not reasonable and would have resulted in further frustration for the resident.
This Service’s complaint handling code states that landlords must decide whether an extension to the timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident. A complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 26 January 2024, 44 working days later and, 24 working days later than its complaint policy timescale. It is noted that the landlord’s final response was incorrectly dated as 26 January 2023.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that the service the resident received was disappointing and fell short of what it would expect. It apologised that it had closed the complaint at stage 1 and acknowledged that it should have made further attempts to make contact. It was making improvements in its complaint handling which included the restructuring of its customer resolution team to include expert case handlers, administrative support and team leaders. It had fed back to the team to improve the quality of stage 1 management and responses to ensure customers felt their concerns were being heard. Its future plans included centralising its team, responding to complaints, for all service areas. This demonstrated that the landlord had learnt from the complaint and was taking measures to ensure that its complaint handling was improved.
The landlord offered £450 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This was reasonable and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for maladministration, in the range of £100 to £600. This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord has made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (The Scheme), there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof resulting in damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay, directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears, the total sum of £1,500 broken down as follows:
1. £650 for distress and inconvenience for the delays in completing repairs to the roof and assessing the damp and mould in the resident’s home.
2. £850 offered in its stage 2 response (this can be deducted if already paid).
The landlord is ordered to send a written apology, by a senior member of staff, to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.
Within 8 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to carry out a full property survey, using an independent external contractor, to assess the condition of the property. This should include the roof, and issues relating to damp and mould. It must provide a copy of the report to the resident and this Service, arrange to complete any identified repairs, and provide the resident with a timescale in which these will be completed.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay to the resident £450 offered in its stage 2 response in relation to its complaint handling failures if not already paid.
The landlord should consider its record keeping ensuring that it is aware of what works have been completed to its properties and ensure that it monitors outstanding work appropriately.