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

Peabody Trust (202204552)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204552

Peabody Trust

28 June 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 response to reports of repairs within the property, mainly a broken shower head and blocked waste pipe.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlords complaints handling and record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, his tenancy began on 5 June 2020. He lives in a 1 bedroom basement flat, the landlord has advised it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. Shortly after the resident moved in, he reported issues with damp and mould in the property. He complained to the landlord and brought the complaint to the Ombudsman relating to the damp and mould, for which this service has made a previous determination upon. Evidence has been provided to show further works are ongoing regarding the damp and mould.
  3. The resident reported a blocked waste pipe to the landlord on 8 June 2022, with the landlord unable to “rod” the drain it noted a drainage company was required. The landlord raised a works order to repair the showerhead on 18 October 2022 but recorded the job as no access. Two drain surveys were completed at the property, the first on 17 November 2022 and the second on 2 February 2023.
  4. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when the resident made a complaint but it provided a stage 1 response on 9 February 2023 in which it mentioned the complaint “being passed” to the officer responding on 18 October 2022. Within its response the landlord clarified the resident’s complaint was about a blocked waste pipe and a broken shower head, it noted the resident sought compensation for the delays and for the repairs to be completed. The landlord confirmed it had attended on 2 occasions to fix the shower head but had not been able to access the property, before attending on 13 December 2022 and fitting a showerhead. It also clarified the works order to repair the waste pipe was raised on 20 October 2022 and completed on 25 January 2023. It awarded £250 for the delays to the repairs.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 21 March 2023. The landlord noted the resident had “been calling every day since last week”, that he was “not happy” with his complaint and wanted to speak to someone as soon as possible.
  6. The landlord issued its final response on 21 April 2023. When the landlord contacted the resident on 12 April 2023, to discuss his complaint, the resident advised he was still unhappy with his previous complaint which had been determined by the Ombudsman. The landlord informed the resident that was not something that could be reinvestigated and clarified that its stage 2 would only look at the amount of compensation offered at stage 1 and the 2 repairs to the showerhead and blockage. The landlord:
    1. Confirmed that all works following the previous determination were recorded as completed, but due to the resident’s concerns about an ongoing damp issue, it would arrange for a surveyor to assess the property.
    2. Clarified that on the call the resident had confirmed the damp issues were resolved, but he was “out of pocket” after decorating himself.
    3. Informed the resident it had arrangements in place for contractors to decorate the property which had been previously declined by the resident therefore it could not reimburse the resident any further on this matter.
    4. Reiterated its apology from its stage 1 response for the delays to the repairs to the waste pipe and showerhead.
    5. Also apologised for the resident’s escalation request being recorded as a dissatisfaction with the amount of compensation offered.
    6. Offered a further £150 for its complaint handling to “recognise the complaint journey as a vulnerable person” and the impact it had on the resident that a written acknowledgement was not sent.
    7. The landlord concluded that due to the nature of the conversations it had recently had with the resident when investigating his complaint it had arranged for a housing manager to contact the resident to see if additional support could be offered and give the resident chance to discuss any further issues he had with his home.
  7. The resident requested the Ombudsman investigate his complaint on 18 May 2023. He had stated, in communications with the Ombudsman that his complaint was about damp and mould, the amount of compensation offered and the landlord’s accountability to keep the property in good condition.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has previously brought a separate complaint to the Ombudsman relating to repairs and damp and mould, for which this service has made a determination on. This related to the period up to November 2021. For clarity, this was a separate complaint to the one addressed in this report and is mentioned only to differentiate between the 2 time periods. In accordance with Paragraph 42(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot make a determination on matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
  2. The resident, in communications to the Ombudsman referred to an ongoing issue with damp at the property. No evidence has been seen to show this was brought as a complaint to the landlord, therefore this issue will not be investigated. A landlord must have the opportunity to resolve a complaint through all stages of its complaint procedure before the Ombudsman can assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s response. This is in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme paragraph 42 (a) which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman opinion, are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure
  3. The resident has stated the situation has directly impacted his wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to reports of repairs within the property, mainly a broken shower head and blocked waste pipe.

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property, this includes fixtures of a bathroom. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. In this case it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s repairs reports and take appropriate steps to resolve any issues identified.
  2. The landlords repair policy states that emergency repairs are completed or made safe within 24 hours and routine repairs within an average of 10 working days. If the repair will take longer, the policy says the landlord will keep residents informed throughout the process. The repair to the showerhead took 40 working days to complete, but the landlord did attempt access on 2 occasions prior to completing the repair. The blockage took 67 working days to complete, no evidence has been seen that suggests the blockage stopped the resident being able to utilise the property in a normal way. Although the landlord did not complete the repairs within the timeframes of its policy it acknowledged and apologised for this within its complaint process and offered financial redress to the sum of £250, which was in line with its compensation policy.
  3. Having carefully considered the evidence, the Ombudsman agreed with the landlord’s findings in this case. There is no evidence the length of time repairs took equate to maladministration on the part of the landlord or were excessively unreasonable. There was reasonable redress provided by the landlord following its handling of repairs. The landlord acknowledged its failings to repair the showerhead and blockage in its stage 1 complaint. It followed good dispute resolution principles. It was fair, put things right and learnt from outcomes. Its offer of compensation of £250 for the time, trouble and distress was reasonable in the circumstances and was reflective of its compensation policy.

The landlord’s complaints handling and record keeping.

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint process. Its complaint policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, our employees or those acting on our behalf”. It says it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days. Its policy says if more time is required then it will be agreed by both parties.
  2. It is not clear from the records provided when the landlord first recorded the resident’s complaint, its stage 1 complaint states the complaint was however “passed on” on the 18 October 2022. It responded at stage 1 on 9 February 2023, 80 working days after the complaint was “passed on”. This far exceeds the 10 working day timescale within the landlord’s policy. No evidence has been seen to show the resident was kept informed of his complaints progress during this time or was provided with an apology at stage 1 for this delay, which was not appropriate.
  3. The landlord was asked to provide the residents initial complaint, which detailed the resident to be living in 1 room and that the resident wanted a surveyor to confirm all the damp had gone before he decorated. The complaint notes also mention the resident “really struggling within his mental health” and the property condition was making him “depressed and angry”. No contact records were provided and therefore no evidence has been seen that the landlord responded to the resident’s statements made, which was not reasonable.
  4. Furthermore, the landlords stage 1 response did not respond to the particular points that the resident made in his initial complaint, but rather focussed on just 2 repairs. Although this was not disputed from the resident, it was not reasonable for the landlord to not fully respond to the resident’s complaint at this initial stage. The opportunity for early resolution was missed by the landlord at this initial stage. The landlord responded in a more appropriate manner at stage 2 of its process, contacting the resident to discuss his complaint and responding fully in writing to the points discussed.
  5. It was appropriate for the landlord at stage 2 to inform the resident it could not revisit the already determined complaint but offer to send a surveyor to the property to inspect any damp issues the resident advised of.  At stage 2 the landlord acknowledged a possible “breakdown in communication” as it was unclear if errors had been made regarding the root cause of the resident’s complaint. Although it put this down to information differing from one conversation to the next with the resident, if the landlord kept clear and concise records of its contact with the resident, this may have been avoided.
  6. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a landlords housing management and repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of its customers and its property. A system should be in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, investigations and any contact with residents where action is agreed upon. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy states: “Compensation payments are made when a person has experienced a delay or has incurred additional costs because of a service failure on our part or if we have failed to carry out a service within our published guidelines”. The policy specifies sums that can be paid by the landlord for time trouble and inconvenience, poor complaint handling and other service failures.
  8. The landlord acted inline with its policy and offered £250 for the delays in completing its repairs and a further £150 for its complaint handling at stage 2, totalling £400. A finding of service failure has been made as although this amount is seen as reasonable, the landlord failed to apologise for the delayed stage 1 response, failed to provide an explanation for this and therefore could not be sure it would not happen again. The landlord also failed to evidence clear and detailed records of its interactions with the resident around the repairs and his complaint.

Wider investigation

  1. This Service recently made an order in case reference 202128489  for the landlord to carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations within the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and provide the results of this assessment to this Service. This determination will not duplicate that order but the landlord should consider if there are additional learnings arising from this specific report which its self assessment did not consider or surface.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its response to reports of repairs within the property, mainly a broken shower head and blocked waste pipe.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling and record keeping.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination
    1. Send a written apology to the resident for failures in its complaint handling detailed in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for failures in its complaint handling and record keeping detailed in this report.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to see if he wishes to make a new complaint about any repair works after the stage 2 response it issued on 21 April 2023.