Peabody Trust (202312926)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312926

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the garage door.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident occupies a three-bedroom flat under a secure tenancy agreement. The property has an integral garage, which means the garage can be accessed from the property.
The resident told us that she reported to the landlord in December 2022 that her garage door was misaligned and it could not be closed or locked. She stated the internal door between her integral garage and the rest of the property had no lock, so her home was not secure due to the issue with the garage door.
The resident told us that the landlord’s contractor arranged multiple appointments to inspect the garage door from 8 February 2023 onwards, but nobody attended despite multiple assurances this would happen.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 7 July 2023. She told the landlord that:
1. though she reported her garage door needed repairing in December 2022, it was still outstanding
2. she had spoken to the landlord’s contractors on multiple occasions and appointments had been arranged but nobody had attended
3. her home was not secure, as the rest of the property can be accessed through the garage, and she cannot get insurance because of this
4. she recently experienced a bereavement and felt trapped in her home in order to protect her belongings. She wanted her home to be secured so she could move on with her life.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 November 2023. In this it said it accepted that the repair was not prioritised or managed effectively by its contractor. The landlord said it had since repaired the garage door and offered the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the delay.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the response and told the landlord that it had not repaired her garage door as it had claimed. She escalated her complaint on 20 December 2023.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response on 26 March 2024 that:
1. It accepted that the resident had reported the garage door repair on several occasions and that the repair was outstanding. It apologised that it unreasonably delayed carrying out this repair
2. It accepted that there were missed appointments by its contractors in responding to the repair and apologised for this.
3. It explained there were delays in acknowledging and responding at both stages of its complaints process. It also agreed that the quality of its stage 1 response was poor and had incorrectly stated it had fixed the garage door.
4. It offered the resident £660 as compensation, comprising of:
  1. £300 for time, trouble, and inconvenience
  2. £300 for poor complaint handling
  3. £60 for missed appointments (on the basis of £10 per appointment)
5. It would raise a new order to repair the garage door and would remain in contact with her until this was complete.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as she did not feel its offer of compensation reflected the anxiety its actions had caused her. As of the date of this determination the Ombudsman understands that the repairs to the garage door have still not been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope

In her complaints to this service, the resident reported that the delay in repairing the garage door had caused her to develop costochondritis (a joint inflammation causing chest pain).
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of medico-legal reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This will be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation as the courts can make legally binding decisions. If the resident wishes to pursue the impact on her health further, she should seek independent legal advice. The Ombudsman will still consider distress and inconvenience caused from the landlord’s actions.
The resident also said as an outcome to her complaint she wanted a managed move from her property and would like assistance from the landlord with this. She stated that she submitted a managed move request on medical grounds to the landlord in March 2024 but had not received a response to this.
The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing. The Ombudsman has, however, recommended that the landlord provide a response to the resident’s previous request.

The landlord’s records keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the garage door

The tenancy agreement says that the landlord’s repair obligations include maintaining the structure and exterior of the premises, including internal and external doors as well as integral garages.
The landlord’s repair policy says:
1. for emergency repairs (those that need a rapid response to safeguard the wellbeing of the resident, the stability/integrity of the property or the health and safety of residents) it aims to attend within 4 hours and make the property safe within 24 hours.
2. if further repair work is required after the property is made safe the landlord will complete this within its routine repair targets. The routine repair target is 10 working days
3. if it needs to change an appointment it will inform customers as soon as possible but, as a minimum, before it is scheduled to visit.
As the landlord merged with the resident’s original landlord during the events complained about it created a new responsive repairs policy on 10 July 2023. This adopted a similar approach saying:
1. emergency repairs (within normal working hours) needed to be attended and completed within 4 hours, which can be as a temporary repair in certain circumstances
2. non-urgent repairs are to be completed within 28 calendar days, with an average target of 10 working days
3. if it needs to change an appointment it will inform customers as soon as possible.
The landlord has not provided this service with a copy of the resident’s initial report about the garage door. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known when exactly this was reported, what action was taken to resolve the repair request or what information the resident was given. This was a failure by the landlord.
Notwithstanding this, the resident consistently told the landlord that she had reported in December 2022 that her garage door needed repairs, and her home was insecure as a result. The landlord did not dispute this at any time in its handling of her complaint.
The evidence indicates that the landlord’s contractor booked an appointment to attend on 13 February 2023. This was around 2 months after the resident reported the repair. This was a failure by the landlord, as it was not consistent with its policy.
The resident told us no-one attended the 13 February 2023 appointment. She provided texts showing that between 15 February 2023 to 4 April 2023 the contractor rescheduled 4 appointments to repair the garage door and did not attend any of these.
We have seen no evidence the landlord or its contractor informed the resident about the need to change the appointments before these occurred. This was inappropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s repair policy. The repeated rescheduling of appointments also caused the landlord to exceed the timescales for repair requests in its policy, which was also inappropriate.
The contractor did attend on 28 April 2023. The contractor informed the resident the garage door could not be repaired and the repair request was closed without any work taking place. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known what happened during the attendance on 28 April 2023, what action was taken to resolve the repair request or what information the resident was given. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
The resident raised a new repair request which should not have been necessary. The contractor booked another repair appointment for 12 June 2023. The contractor did not attend this appointment. There followed a series of text messages between the contractor and the resident regarding the repair:
1. Between 12 June 2023 and 13 September 2023, the contractor rescheduled 4 further appointments to repair the garage door and did not attend any of these
2. After the resident contacted the contractor following the non-attendance on 13 September 2023, it told her it would not be rescheduling another appointment for the repair request.
We have seen no evidence the landlord or its contractor informed the resident about the need to change the appointments before these occurred. This was inappropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s repair policy. The repeated rescheduling of appointments also caused the landlord to exceed the timescales for repair requests in its policy, which is also inappropriate.
In addition, as part of the formal complaint the resident raised on 7 July 2023, she told the landlord she had been waiting for the repair since December 2022 and though the job had been booked several times the contractors had not attended. She explained her property was not secure and the situation was stressful and unsafe. She asked the landlord to contact her and make her home secure. Considering the resident’s circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have reassessed the priority of the scheduled repair in line with its policy for emergency repairs, particularly given the delays the resident had already experienced. There is no evidence the landlord did this, which was a failing.
The resident complained to the landlord again on 13 September 2023. She informed the landlord that its contractor had told her it would not be rescheduling another appointment. The resident reiterated that the property was not secure and her home insurance was void as a result. She asked the landlord to replace the garage door as soon as possible due to the stress the situation is causing her. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have assessed whether emergency repairs were required to make the property safe in line with its repairs policy. There is no evidence the landlord did this following the complaint, which was a failing.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 14 November 2023, it stated that the garage door had been repaired. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord’s response was either accurate or reasonable. This was a failing by the landlord, and further indicates that it did not maintain adequate records.
The resident told the landlord on 30 November 2023 it had not repaired the garage door as it had said in the stage 1 response. On 11 December 2023, the landlord called the resident. It told her it had raised an emergency repair with its contractor to make safe her garage door within 24 hours and book in follow-up repairs if necessary. The evidence indicates that the contractor attended on 13 December 2023, which was 2 days later. The Ombudsman expects landlords to make reasonable efforts to comply with the agreements that have already been made with residents. This was a failing by the landlord.
The repair logs for 13 December 2023 record:
1. there was a hinge missing from the garage door which caused the lock to be faulty
2. the internal door from the garage had no lock, so access could be gained to the rest of the property through the garage.
The contractor raised a new job on 13 December 2023 to replace the locks on the garage door and the internal door from the garage to the rest of the property. There is no evidence that the contractor completed any interim measures to make safe the garage door as the landlord had said would happen. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The evidence indicates that on 24 January 2024 a contractor attended to fit a lock to the internal door between the integral garage and the rest of the property.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a reasonable interim measure to make the property safe whilst the repair to the garage door was outstanding. However, the Ombudsman has seen no adequate explanation why this interim measure took so long to be completed. In total there was a delay of around 13 months, from the resident’s first repair request for the garage door in December 2022. The resident had informed the landlord on several occasions during this time that her property was not secure. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is a serious failing by the landlord.
The resident contacted her Member of Parliament (MP) for further support. This should not have been necessary. On 15 February 2024, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord. The resident informed the MP the garage door still needed repairs and was blowing open in heavy wind and allowing cold air into the property. The landlord requested an update from its contractor about this.
On 23 February 2024, the landlord’s contractor identified that the garage door was beyond repair. The landlord’s repair logs record that the contractor referred the garage door to the surveyor on 19 February 2024. However, due to a lack of adequate records it is not known when the contractor attended, its findings or its reasons for referring the garage door to the surveyor. This was a failing by the landlord.
The landlord referred the repair back to the contractor to make safe the garage door as it was flapping open in the wind causing a noise nuisance and a safety issue. The contractor attended on 28 February 2024 and recorded that the garage door had no working locks. The contractor fitted timber to make safe, so the door could not be opened from the outside.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a reasonable interim measure to address the safety issue of the garage door blowing open in the wind whilst the repair to the garage door was outstanding. However, it took the landlord 13 days to complete this interim measure after the MP raised this on the resident’s behalf. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The MP also stated the resident’s property was cold due to the unrepaired garage door. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay certain costs to a resident where the landlord does not complete repairs within its published timescales due to a service failure on its part. The schedule of these costs specifies that for temporary heating it will provide the service user £3 for each day between 1 October and 30 April of any year.
From the records there is no evidence that the landlord assessed if any action was required to help the resident heat the property until the repair was completed. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s stage 2 response on 26 March 2024 acknowledged it had still not repaired the garage door. It told the resident it would raise a new order to review the garage door and would remain in contact with her until it completed the repair.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 April 2024, 15 April 2024, and 18 April 2024 to ask for an update and ask when the repair to the garage door would be completed. The resident continued to inform the landlord that the property remained cold due to the unrepaired garage door and she was having to pay for extra heating. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord assessed if it needed to take any action to help the resident heat the property until the repair was completed. This was a failure by the landlord.
As of the date of this report the resident told this service the garage door has not been repaired. The landlord’s records state its contractor has booked an appointment for 10 June 2024, which is 51 working days after the landlord agreed to raise a new repair, and at least 18 months after the resident first raised the repair. The landlord’s actions here were not appropriate as these are not consistent with its repair policy. This is a significant failure by the landlord.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, as set out previously, the landlord offered the resident £360 for the delay in repairing the garage door, comprising of £300 for time, trouble, and inconvenience and £60 for missed service appointments. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is not a reasonable remedy to put things right for the resident.
The resident told this service that she experienced anxiety about leaving her home, for the 13 months between December 2022 and the lock being fitted to the internal door on 24 January 2024, due to her home being insecure. She says she only left the property for essential reasons due to the fear that someone could enter her home and steal her belongings when she was not there. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion this would have had a significant emotional impact on the resident considering the amount of time that the landlord took to make safe the property.
In summary, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repair to the garage door, in that it:
1. did not keep adequate records of the actions taken to resolve the repair request
2. did not undertake works to make safe the property or complete the repair request raised in December 2022 within a reasonable timescale (or at all) and substantially exceeded the timescales in its policy
3. did not keep to scheduled appointments to attend the property for the repair request on 9 occasions over a 7–month period and did not inform the resident about the reasons for this
4. did not reassess whether it needed to address the garage door needed as an emergency repair after the resident formally complained that her home was not secure in July 2023 and September 2023
5. did not carry out any interim repairs to make safe the property when it first attended the property as an emergency repair on 13 December 2023
6. delayed carrying out interim repairs to make safe the garage door when a safety concern was raised about this on 15 February 2024 compared to the timescales in its policy
7. did not assess whether the resident needed support to heat the property when she complained about the draughts being caused by the unrepaired garage door
8. did not carry out follow-up repairs to complete the repair request for the garage door, following the interim repairs, in line with the timescales in its policy.
The resident has remained in a property that is not secure since December 2022, some 18 months. This is wholly inadequate. The resident also told this service the anxiety from leaving her home was exacerbated as her late partner had been diagnosed with cancer in late 2022 and she was attending appointments with him for his treatment up until his death on 19 April 2023. In particular, she told us that for the planned appointment on 14 March 2023 she had asked repeatedly for assurances the contractor would attend as she was visiting her partner at his hospice and did not want to leave him by himself. The impact on the resident of these failures is likely to have been significant. In the Ombudsman’s view, these are aggravating factors in line with our Remedies Guidance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of being logged. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
When the resident submitted her complaint on 7 July 2023, she received an automatic response from the landlord stating that the complaint would be responded to in 10 working days. In the absence of a response, the resident contacted this service for support. This service wrote to the landlord on 31 August 2023 and instructed the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint no later than 5 September 2023. This should not have been necessary and was a significant failure by the landlord.
The landlord responded to this service on 5 September 2023, attaching a stage 1 response it said it had sent to the resident. However, the stage 1 response provided was for a previous, unrelated complaint the resident had made about heating in her kitchen. This indicates that the landlord had not identified the resident’s complaint. It is worrying that the landlord waited to the deadline to provide details of an unrelated complaint. This was not appropriate.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 November 2023, which was 92 working days after the resident raised her complaint on 7 July 2023, and 50 working days after the deadline set by this service. This was not acceptable. This added to the catalogue of errors already present in this case in repairing the door. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to handle complaints in a way that is consistent with its policy without the involvement of this service.
The landlord’s stage 1 response claimed that it had fixed the garage door. The landlord offered £150 for delays in repairing the garage door. There is no information in the response that explained the landlord’s understanding of the resident’s complaint, how long the repair request had been outstanding or how it had reached its decision. In line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) we expect landlords to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for its decisions. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response was not consistent with the Code.
On 11 December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again to escalate the complaint. The landlord told the resident she could not escalate the complaint at that time and would need to wait for the call back from the repairs contractor and reply to the stage 1 complaint handler after this. This was not acceptable.
The Code says that landlords must not refuse to escalate a complaint through its complaints procedure unless it has valid reasons to do so. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s actions were inappropriate here as it did not have a valid reason to refuse to escalate the complaint in line with the Code. This was an unreasonable restriction on the resident’s rights in the Code.
On 20 December 2023, the landlord stated that the resident had escalated her complaint to stage 2 though there is no record of the resident’s escalated complaint or what it told the resident at the time. It did not acknowledge the stage 2 escalation or set out its understanding of the complaint until 15 January 2024. Due to a lack of adequate records it is not known when the landlord agreed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 and what information the resident was given. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
The landlord told the resident on 6 February 2024 it would be extending the deadline for its response by 10 working days in line with its policy. Although this was consistent with its policy, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this was not reasonable. This is because the landlord requested further time to respond some 38 working days after the resident had already escalated her complaint.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 20 February 2024 and explained that due to staff illness it was necessary to extend the stage 2 response and would respond by 4 March 2024. We recognise that unexpected absence may delay a response. However, the landlord did not respond by 4 March 2024.
In the absence of a response, this service contacted the landlord again on 19 March 2024 and instructed it to provide its stage 2 response no later than 26 March 2024. This should not have been necessary.
The stage 2 response was issued on 26 March 2024. This was 3 months after the initial escalation request and 51 working days after the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation. The landlord’s actions here were inappropriate as it significantly exceeded the timescales in its complaints policy (and the Code) and it did not keep the resident updated.
The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that the resident had made multiple contacts with it about the garage door, which it had still not repaired. It accepted that there were unreasonable delays in its handling of this repair and offered £300 as compensation. As with the stage 1 response there was no explanation of the landlord’s understanding of the resident’s complaint, how long the repair request had been outstanding or how it had reached its decision. The landlord offered the resident £60 on the basis of six missed appointment, in line with its compensation policy which says £10 will be offered for each missed appointment by its contractor. However, the landlord explicitly stated in the stage 2 response it had ‘guessed’ the number of missed appointments.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion these indicate either that the landlord did not consider all the relevant information and evidence carefully to reach its decision in line with the Code, or that there was a lack of adequate records to allow it to investigate fully. In either case this was a significant failing by the landlord.
The stage 2 response told the resident it would raise a new order to review the garage door and would remain in contact with her until it completed the repair. As set out previously the resident told us that, as of the date of this report, the landlord has not updated her about this and the garage door repair is still outstanding.
This is not acceptable. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to resolve complaints without the involvement of this service. It should not be necessary for the Ombudsman to order the landlord to provide a remedy it has already promised. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
In line with the Code any remedy offered to put a complaint right must clearly set out what will happen and by when. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord has had a reasonable timescale since the stage 2 response to complete the remedy it proposed but there is no evidence it has done so. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the Code.
In terms of complaint handling, as set out previously, the landlord’s stage 2 response agreed there had been delays in acknowledging and responding to the complaint at both stages. It also accepted that the claim in stage 1 response that it had fixed the garage door was inaccurate. The landlord offered the resident £300 for the poor complaint handling and stated that it was making improvements to its monitoring of complaints to prevent a repeat of these failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is not a reasonable remedy to put things right for the resident considering the extent of the complaint handling failings.
In summary the Ombudsman’s opinion is that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint, in that it:
1. significantly delayed responding to the complaint at both stages, taking approximately 7 months to complete the complaints process and requiring 2 interventions by this service
2. did not keep the resident updated at multiple points in the complaint process
3. provided an inaccurate stage 1 response which incorrectly claimed the repair request had been resolved
4. initially refused to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 without a valid reason
5. did not provide a suitable explanation at either stage for how it had reached its decision on the complaint and the reasons for its decisions
6. has not completed the remedy it said it would do in its stage 2 response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the garage door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. provide a copy of this decision to the CEO and ask them to issue the resident with a written apology. This must recognise the landlord’s delays in completing the repairs and the impact this had on the resident.
2. pay the resident a total of £2,015 in compensation (inclusive of the £660 it previously offered) comprised of:
  1. £1,300 for the resident’s distress, anxiety and inconvenience caused by the significant delays in making safe the property and repairing the garage door
  2. £90 for the 9 missed appointments by the landlord’s contractor in line with the landlord’s compensation policy
  3. £225 as reimbursement for the resident’s temporary heating costs between 15 February 2024 until 30 April 2024, in line with the landlord’s compensation policy
  4. £400 in recognition of the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the significant failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. complete the repairs to the garage door that it agreed in its stage 2 response. If it cannot, it must offer replacement doors and set out a time to complete these. The landlord must pay the resident £25 per day for the period the repair remains unresolved beyond 28 days of the date of this determination. This will be to recognise the anxiety and distress caused to the resident by living in a home which is not secure.
4. provide evidence of compliance with these orders.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must carry out a management review of the resident’s case and provide a copy of the review to the Ombudsman within 56 days. This should consider:
1. how the delays in responding to the repair request occurred and its practices regarding how it deals with, responds to, and monitors repair requests. This is to ensure that they are recorded, investigated, and responded to appropriately and in a timely manner. The landlord must ensure it scrutinises its contractor’s records and internal records.
2. how the complaint handling failings occurred and how the landlord will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of a reoccurrence
3. any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.
The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman setting out its findings to the review. This must be provided within 56 days of the date of his determination.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord provide the resident with a response to the managed move request she made in March 2024. If the landlord is not able to agree to her request the Ombudsman recommends that it provides the resident with details of any additional support she is entitled to.