Peabody Trust (202127053)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127053

Peabody Trust

14 August 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 resident’s:
1. Mutual exchange.
2. Reports of repairs.
3. Complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and moved into is current property through a mutual exchange in October 2020. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat, that has a basement for utilities and storage.
The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to suffering from a mental health condition. The evidence available indicates that the resident described himself as vulnerable to Covid-19, due to his health conditions.

Summary of events

The landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s property, ahead of the mutual exchange, on 25 August 2020. It produced a report that said:
1. The findings of the report were based on a visual inspection only.
2. It had an outstanding repair to refit the kitchen door that the outgoing resident had agreed to complete.
3. There were no outstanding repairs for the landlord to complete.
4. In the garden “repairs to the stairs” were already reported and “in hand”.
5. The property was in a suitable condition for exchange.
On 15 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked about any major planned works the landlord had for the property. The landlord responded on 16 September 2020 and advised the resident to ask the outgoing tenant, as the “rehousing team” had no access to the “development team” systems. It advised the repair to the steps in the garden was “in hand”.
The resident moved into the property on 5 October 2020 and reported the following repairs shortly after he moved in:
1. Plaster coming off the walls in the living room (07 October 2020).
2. The kitchen back door was rotting and unable to close (23 October 2020).
3. A “bad smell” coming from the basement and water draining slowly within the property (2 November 2020).
The landlord complete the repair to the garden staircase on 1 November 2020.
The resident reported the drain in the basement “overflowing with waste” on 27 January 2021. The landlord’s notes state he had reported the issue “3 times in 2 months”, and it asked its contractor to identify any follow on works needed. The job was marked as complete on the same day, the outcome is unclear.
The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 2 February 2021, and said:
1. He was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs in his property.
2. He had been “sleeping in the living room” since moving in due to the ongoing works in the property.
3. The situation was causing him “mental strain” and the “lack of empathy” from the landlord was impacting on his mental health.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 9 March 2021 and said:
1. It attended to a leak in the basement on 12 February 2021 and identified follow on works to where plastic waste pipe went into an old clay pipe. It advised its contractor had attempted to book follow on repairs twice, but the resident did not answer.
2. Its contractor had booked to replace a rotten floor joist, and renew the ply under the bathroom floor covering. Its contractor cancelled the job for 29 January 2021, and had rebooked it for 9 April 2021.
3. Its contractor had cancelled 2 appointments to attend to the works in the hallway and living room (mould and plastering repairs) on 8 December and 4 February 2021. It had rebooked the appointment for 9 April 2021.
4. It had found the standard of service the resident had received was below what it expected to provide, and apologised for the frustration and inconvenience caused.
5. It confirmed it would make an offer of compensation once all repairs were completed and the resident was “satisfied with the outcome”. This was to ensure its offer of compensation took into account any “further service failures that may have occurred”.
6. It had arranged a joint inspection with its contractor to identify any other repairs that were needed.
The landlord replaced the soil stack in the basement on 6 April 2021.
The landlord completed a ‘refurbishment survey’ on 13 April 2021. From the evidence available, the outcome of the survey is unclear. However, the evidence indicates the landlord sought to inspect the whole property, including the floor coverings and sub floors. It identified that extensive repairs were required to the resident’s property and he was temporarily decanted in June 2021.
During the decant the landlord completed the following repairs:
1. Works to the garden wall at the rear.
2. Fitted a new kitchen.
3. Repaired wall under kitchen window.
4. Works to the boiler and thermostat.
The resident moved back into the property in August 2021. He emailed the landlord on 25 August 2021 expressing a concern that not all of the outstanding repairs were addressed while he was decanted and asked:
1. Why the asbestos present in the basement and kitchen was not removed.
2. Why the basement issue was not “dealt with” and there was still a hole in the floor that had been there since he moved in.
The landlord responded on the same day and said it had only removed the asbestos that would have been disturbed by the works. It was “satisfied” with the works carried out, and they had been signed off.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 October 2021 and reported the basement was still flooding with “raw sewage” when it rained, as the drain overflowed into the basement. It is unclear what action the landlord took at that time.
The resident sent the landlord a ‘letter before action’ on 4 November 2021. The letter listed the repair the resident believed to be unresolved, and a request for compensation for damaged possessions.
The resident reported the drain in the basement had blocked again on 8 November 2021, and the landlord attended to unblock it on the same day.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 November 2021 expressing a concern about its handling of the ongoing repairs, and that its contractor did not attend when it was booked. The landlord responded on 12 November 2021 and said that as the resident had “commenced a legal claim” it would not be able to respond, “any further”. It said it would respond to the “legal claim” within 20 days, as set out in law.
The resident was decanted on 20 March 2022 to 27 March 2022 so the landlord could remove asbestos in his property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 March 2022 and asked his complaint to be taken to stage 2. He said that “no legal action” had been taken against the landlord and it had refused to progress his complaint for “no reason”. The resident expressed a concern that the repairs remained outstanding. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint acknowledgement on 23 March 2022 and said it would send its response by 13 April 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord around 29 April 2022 (the exact date is unclear) and asked when it would send its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord responded on 29 April 2022 and still working though his complaint, due to the amount of information involved. It said it hoped to respond by 6 May 2022. The resident contacted this Service and asked us for assistance in getting the landlord to respond to his stage 2 complaint. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 12 May 2022, and said:
1. It outlined the repairs it had undertaken at the resident’s property since March 2021.
2. It had found evidence there were “some instances” when contractors did not attend as planned.
3. It had also found there were some occasions when contractors were unable to gain access.
4. It stated that there was a “lack of internal communications” which contributed to the delays.
5. It accepted that there was an “unreasonable and protracted” period of time for it to complete repairs. Its repairs process should have been more streamlined and proactive.
6. It understood that repairs were outstanding and it would discuss the issues with its repairs team to ensure the repairs went ahead.
7. As learning it would send details of his complaint on to the ‘contract management team’ who would review its failings to improve its service.
8. It acknowledged that “extensive repairs” were identified since he had moved in. It was of the view that not all of these were “identifiable” when it completed the inspection, as part of the mutual exchange.
9. Its records indicated that it found the property to be in “good condition” when it did the mutual exchange inspection. If found the issues “came to light” when the resident started redecorating.
10. It advised the resident of its mutual exchange policy that states incoming tenant agree to “accept the condition” of the property.
11. It apologised for not progressing the resident’s complaint to stage 2 as he had requested.
12. It signposted the resident to its insurance team so he could make a claim for loss of personal possessions.
13. It apologised for its handling of the repairs, and the delay in responding to the complaint, and made the following offer of compensation:
  1. £150 for complaint handling delays.
  2. £1,000 for time, trouble, and inconvenience due to the delayed repair works.
The resident reported the drain in the basement overflowing on 1 July 2022, and the landlord attended to clear it. The notes from the visit show it found a “large amount of debris” in the “bucan trap” and follow up works were needed. It does not appear that the landlord did follow up works around this time.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 October 2022 and said:
1. There had been a “complete failure” to complete the outstanding repairs to his property.
2. Many of his possessions were in the shed it had installed as a “temporary measure” to store his possessions while it complete works, the year before.
3. He was concerned the shed was “no longer suitable” to store his belongings for “another winter”.
A contractor for the landlord inspected the resident’s property on 3 November 2022 to identify the outstanding repairs and said:
1. The previous contractor had left works unfinished.
2. The basement needed repairs to the render, joists, and ceiling.
3. The new kitchen was “poorly fitted” and the cooker was installed in an “unsafe location”.
4. There was an unresolved flooding issue in the rear garden, during periods of heavy rainfall.
5. The resident’s possessions were stored in a “large temporary shed”. The shed and concrete base would need dismantling once works were completed.
The resident contacted this Service on 20 January 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint, as he was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response.

Events after the complaints procedure

The landlord contacted the resident on 17 March 2023 and said it was planning to install a new kitchen on 20 March 2023, but he had told its contractor that he wanted the layout changed. It advised that the design of the new kitchen was making “the best use of the available space”. It asked the resident to give his agreement to the plans, so it could progress with the installation. The resident responded on the same day and said he disagreed, and asked for a meeting to discuss a redesign of the kitchen.
The landlord responded on 23 March 2023 and said was not prepared to redesign the kitchen, and asked him to give his agreement for the installation to go ahead. The resident responded on the same day and said he did not accept that its plans were the “best option available”.
A contractor for the landlord commissioned a survey on the resident’s property in June 2023 (the exact date is unclear), and produced a report that said:
1. The floor in the “right hand” room of the property had “partially collapsed” which appeared to have been caused by being “very wet over an extended period”.
2. The report included photographs that showed the above room empty of furnishings and a substantial area of the floor had collapsed. The description of the photograph stated that the wall plates and joists were “sodden and rotten”.
3. The damp in the external wall and joists indicated that there was a “lack of below ground ventilation”
4. The basement was damp and needed works to create ventilation.
The landlord emailed the resident with an update on some outstanding repairs on 29 June 2023, and said:
1. Following its inspection of the basement and drain in November 2022, it had booked the works to start on 3 July 2023.
2. It would complete the fire safety works in the basement once it had done the works to the drainage and floor joists above the basement.
3. It was not prepared to decant the resident as the works needed would not “affect the usage” of the rest of the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 July 2023 to express a concern that the works in the basement had stopped on 4 July 2023. He said he had been told by the contractor that “extensive excavation” work were needed, but a structural engineer would need to give advice on how to proceed.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint “follow on” response on 12 July 2023 and said:
1. The main section of the collapsed drain was behind a partition wall, and on removing the wall it was found to contain sewage and “historical debris” from the collapsed drain.
2. The waste would need to be removed through the resident’s property, so it had decided to decant him.
3. Once the drainage works were complete, it would commence “all other works” needed. This would include the fire safety works to the basement.
4. Due to the latest issue with the basement, it would start works to install the new kitchen, after the basement works were resolved.
5. It acknowledged the delays in completing repairs was “unreasonable”, and there was a lack of communication and coordination.
6. It had decided to review its offer of compensation, made an offer totalling £3,604.23, and gave the following breakdown:
  1. £350 for complaint handling.
  2. £150 for a lack of communication.
  3. £2,250 for time, trouble, and inconvenience for its handling of the repairs.
  4. 10% rent refund covering the period from 16 May 2022 to 4 May 2023 totalling £739.75
  5. 10% rent refund covering the period from 05 June 2023 to 31 July 2023 totalling £114.48.
  6. The rent refund was offered to acknowledge the impact on the resident for not being able to “enjoy” his home.
The resident was temporarily decanted on 1 August 2023. The resident sent the landlord multiple emails throughout August and early September 2023 asking for updates on the progress of the work, and when he was going to be able to move back in. He expressed “dismay” at the lack of communication from the landlord. The landlord responded to the resident on 6 September 2023 and explained the works were delayed. It said he would not be able to move back in on 8 September 2023, as originally planned, and it would take a further week. It “sincerely” apologised for the delay and the inconvenience caused.
The landlord contacted the resident on 5 October 2023 and said the basement works were completed. It advised he could move back in to the property that day. It was going to do a post work inspection the following week, and would identify any remaining works needed in the property.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint “follow on” response on 6 October 2023, and said:
1. The basement drainage job uncovered “additional underlying problems” which meant it took longer than expected.
2. It had found evidence that the pipe had been leaking “for some years”, and this explained why he had been experiencing sewage leaks into the basement.
3. It accepted there was a “lack of communication” about the delays to the basement works, and the decant.
4. It had arranged a further joint inspection with its contractor for 13 October 2023 to sign of the recent works, identify any further internal works, and agree a new design for the kitchen.
5. It apologised the repairs were “so protracted” and while some of the delay was unavoidable, there was a lack of communication about the issues.
6. It “sincerely” apologised for the length of time the matter was outstanding, and the “anxiety” caused by the uncertainty of when the repairs would be completed.
7. It made an increased offer of £4254.23 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £400 for complaint handling.
  2. £250 for a lack of communication.
  3. £2,750 for time, trouble, and inconvenience for its handling of the repairs.
  4. It restated its 10% rent refund offer of £854.23 made in its earlier follow up response.
The resident reported a repair to the back door to the landlord’s contractor on 8 November 2023. He said the door was swollen and would not close/lock. The contractor said it would pass the report of the repair on to the landlord, and did so the same day.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 November 2023 to share the plans for the new kitchen, and said it was “looking into” the back door issue. The resident chased the landlord for a response to the repair to the back door on 22 November and 1 December 2023. The landlord’s contractor contacted it on 7 December 2023 to ask it to respond to the repair to the back door. The contractor explained the resident had refused to allow access for the kitchen works, until it fixed the door.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint “follow on” response on 08 December 2023 and said:
1. It accepted that, since its previous follow on response, there was a further lack of communication and updates, for which it apologised.
2. It had completed the works to the basement, wall plate, and joists that day.
3. It apologised it had not responded to his report of the repair to the back door, and it had now raised the repair. It would attended to it as a “priority”.
4. The new kitchen would be installed by 16 December 2023.
5. It had looked at its records and found a “recurrent issue” of its surveyor not giving him appropriate updates, for which it apologised.
6. It had agreed to provide a replacement fridge up to the value of £500.
7. It apologised for the lack communication he “continued to experience” throughout the repairs process. He had to contact it on “many occasions” in order to get updates.
8. It would be using its findings from this complaint to inform its “learning strategy” in order to improve its service.
9. It made an increased offer of compensation totalling £6,668.88 made up of:
  1. £400 for complaint handling.
  2. £4,500 for time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs, the lack of communication, and the “disruption” of being decanted.
  3. 10% rent refund covering the period from 8 March 2021 to 31 July 2023 totalling £1,654.40.
  4. 10% rent refund covering the period from 20 October 2023 to 15 December 2023 totalling £114.48.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 18 December 2023 and signed off the works to the basement and kitchen. The landlord completed the repair to the back door on 20 December 2023.
The resident told this Service on 23 February 2024 that the landlord had not yet completed all the works needed in the basement. This meant his possessions were still being stored in the temporary shed in the garden. The resident also explained that he was happy with the new kitchen and it was “much better” than the previous one.
The landlord told this Service on 28 February 2024 that it completed the final works to the basement in January 2024, including the fire safety works.
The landlord told this Service on 7 March 2024, that the temporary storage shed was “gifted” to the resident at his request, as he had asked to keep it, due to the lack of available storage in the property.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters, and external pipes of the property.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. In determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of waste water, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, repair works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete or “make safe” emergency repairs within 24 hours of the repair being reported. The policy states it will complete “routine” repairs within a maximum of 35 days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can award up to a 50% refund of rent for room loss. The policy states that it can offer up to 25% for loss of kitchen, and 10% for loss of living room. It can award up to 5% for loss of garden, but this does not cover winter months. The policy states that it may offer less if the whole room is not unusable.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that it will carry out an inspection of the property ahead of a mutual exchange to identify any repairs needed. It says it will maintain responsibility for any landlord repair obligations that are reported to it ahead of the exchange. The policy states that residents agree to accept the condition of the property they exchange to, and are responsible for carrying out their own inspection.
The landlord’s website also contains details of its vulnerable residents policy which sets out its approach to identifying, assessing, and recording resident’s vulnerabilities. It states that it will provide tailored services that meet residents needs where appropriate and that it will refer vulnerable residents to external support agencies.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a 2 stage complaint procedure. Stage 1 complaint will be logged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaint responses will be sent within 20 working days. The policy states it will not deal with an issue as a complaint if “legal action has begun”. It defines this as “a claim form, or details of the claim having been filed at court”.

Mutual exchange

Ahead of the resident’s mutual exchange, the landlord completed an inspection of the property to identify any repairs needed. This was the correct application of its policy, and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. However, the inspection report lacked clarity and detail, which was a shortcoming in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
The report, from August 2020, cited that the kitchen door needed to be refitted, and the outgoing tenant would complete the repair. There is little explanation of the repair, and why it was for the outgoing tenant to complete. Given such a repair would usually be the landlord’s responsibility, the lack of further information was inappropriate. The report stated that photos of repairs should be included, but none were included for the kitchen door repair. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the matter.
The report lacked clarity in terms of landlord repairs. On one page it stated there were no outstanding repairs for the landlord to complete, and on the next page it cited there was a repair to the garden stairs that was “in hand”. The lack of information about when the repair would be completed, is further evidence that the report lacked clarity. Again, there was no photo of the repair, which the report stipulated there should be. The lack of clarity and detail in the landlord’s inspection report caused the resident an inconvenience. He was left unsure about the repairs and when the landlord repair would take place.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about the property, in September 2020, was dismissive and lacked transparency. About planned works, it said it did not have access to that team’s systems, and referred the resident to the former resident, this was inappropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to raise a query with the relevant team in order to provide an appropriate response. It also advised the resident that the repair to the garden stairs was “in hand”. Again, this was dismissive and caused the resident frustration of not knowing when it would attend to repairs it was responsible for.
The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to manage the resident’s expectations about the mutual exchange process. It explained, in line with its policy, that he was responsible for inspecting the property ahead of exchange, and accepted it in the condition it was in. It sought to explain that its inspection did not identify the “extensive” repairs, and indeed the report advised its findings were based on a visual inspection only. This was reasonable in the circumstances, as the landlord clearly explained its position to the resident, and how it had applied its policy.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy is clear, and by accepting the property, the resident accepted it in the condition it was in at the time. It is unclear whether the resident completed his own inspection of the property to identify any issues. The landlord’s report lacked clarity, and its responses to the resident’s queries was dismissive. The landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange caused the resident an inconvenience, as such a finding of service failure is appropriate, and suitable orders are made below.

Repairs

The “extensive” repairs needed to the resident property, covering the period of this investigation, are not disputed. The resident claimed that the landlord’s handling of repairs, and the associated decant, caused his possessions to be damaged. We do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim. However, it is not the role of this Service to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim, or through the courts. It is the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures. It is noted that the resident decided to make a claim through the landlord’s insurer.
The resident also claimed that the repairs issues in the property, and in particular the impact of being decanted, affected his health. The serious nature of this is acknowledged, and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of our remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
As part of the information provided for this investigation, the landlord told this Service that the resident had said he had a mental health condition, but “did not describe the actual issue”. The landlord’s approach in relation to the resident’s vulnerability is concerning, and is evidence it did not appropriately apply its vulnerable residents policy. Given the length of time the issue was outstanding, and that the resident explained the situation was impacting on his mental health, that it did not seek clarification on the matter was unreasonable. In line with its policy, it would have been appropriate to make further enquiries in order to provide the resident with a tailored service.
While published after the events of this complaint, the landlord should take note of the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights that states landlords should “maintain accurate records of residents’ vulnerabilities and individual circumstances”. That it did not maintain an accurate record of the resident’s vulnerability impacted on its ability to provide him with an appropriate, and tailored, service.
As outlined above, it is not within our remit to make a finding on whether the landlord’s actions directly affected the resident’s mental health. However, it is clear that there was a lack of curiosity about the resident’s vulnerability, and his individual circumstances. 2 lengthy decants would likely affect someone suffering with poor mental health more than someone who does not. The lack of consideration for this on the part of the landlord is concerning. The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not have due regard for whether the resident had a disability, as defined by the Equality Act.
Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristics. The lack of consideration of his declared mental health condition, and the possible need to tailor its service for him, was a failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not appropriately oversee repairs being carried out on its behalf by contractors. The records provided show that, on multiple occasions, the landlord and contractors were unclear on what works were needed, or who was doing them. Some examples of the poor communication, and lack of oversight are listed below:
1. An email the landlord sent the resident on 25 January 2021 in which it said it was “difficult to find out who/what dep[artment] is carrying out works at this point”.
2. An email exchange between the landlord and a contractor on 29 September 2022 where the landlord chased a repair. The contractor advised it had closed the job as it had not been told to proceed.
3. A contractor emailed the landlord on 10 February 2023 and said it needed to “push” its internal surveyor to visit the property. This was because they kept raising jobs that required more works than were on the ticket.
4. While works were ongoing to resolve the drainage issue in the basement, the fire safety contractor attended to start works, on 26 June 2023. It is apparent the landlord was not effectively overseeing or coordinating its contactors. The resident was cost time and trouble in needing to raise the issue with the landlord for it to intervene.
5. A contractor emailed the landlord on 7 December 2023 to chase its response to a repair it had raised on the resident’s behalf, as it had not responded.
The above is a small sample of the evidence this Service has seen that shows the landlord failed to have the appropriate oversight of repairs. The evidence shows that its coordination with contractors was poor. The repair records lack detail about what contactor was completing repairs, and there is very little in the way of recorded outcomes. The evidence indicates there was an over reliance on emails, and poor record keeping, in terms of recording outcomes and follow up. The over reliance on emails evidently created confusion about who was responsible for repairs, and at what stage individual repairs were at. As such, an appropriate learning order is made below.
The landlord accepted that its handling of the repairs was poor and the time taken to complete repairs was “unreasonable” and “protracted”. It is not possible to determine how the compensation offered was calculated against individual repair issues. As such, this investigation has considered the overall offer of compensation and whether it fully put things right for the resident, as a whole. However, to promote learning for the landlord, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the individual repairs issues below, and identified areas of particular concern, and points of learning.

Repairs to basement

The evidence indicates that the landlord was on notice about the issue in the basement being a persistent one, from January 2021. At this time, the landlord’s notes reflect that it asked for further investigation into the issue. This Service has seen no evidence of any follow up, or a recorded outcome of this request. This is a failing in the landlord’s handling of the issue, and its record keeping.
The evidence indicates that the issue kept reoccurring throughout late 2020 and 2021. It is noted that the landlord replaced the soil stack in April 2021, which is evidence it was trying to resolve the issue. However, it is apparent that its attempt was unsuccessful, and the issue kept reoccurring in the following months.
By July 2022 it had identified an issue with the ‘bucan trap’, and reported a large amount of debris that needed follow on works. For a second time, it appears no follow on works were raised, which further contributed to the delay in getting the issue resolved. Throughout this time the resident was subjected to frequent instances of part his property flooding with sewage, and reported the smell impacted on his use of the whole property. The distress this caused is clear, and the landlord’s delay in responding increased the distress he experienced.
Despite citing the need for further works/investigation in January 2021 and July 2022, including a further inspection in November 2022, works to the basement did not start until July 2023. This was an unreasonable delay. It is apparent the issue was more complicated than first thought, and took longer to resolve than anticipated. Due to the complexity of the issue, the delay from when the repair started in July 2023, to when it was completed in October 2023, was not unreasonable. Had the landlord been proactive to identify the cause of the issue sooner, it is reasonable to conclude it would not have taken over 2 years to resolve.
It is also of concern that the landlord was not proactive in communicating about the delays in 2023. It is noted the landlord did respond when the resident asked for updates. However, the updates were not forthcoming, which was inappropriate and cost the resident further time and trouble.

Repairs to flooring

The evidence indicates that the landlord was on notice about issues with the flooring from January 2021. It accepted its contractor had cancelled an appointment which created an unreasonable delay around that time. It is unclear when the works to the flooring went ahead, but the evidence shows the landlord completed a “management survey inspection […] of all floor coverings and sub floor” in April 2021. The outcome of the survey was not provided for this investigation.
On the evidence available it is does not appear that the landlord completed any works to the flooring when the resident was decanted in 2021. The lack of records about the proposed inspection of the flooring and any follow up is concerning. The survey of June 2023 described the floor had been “sodden” for an “extended period”. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that it did not take reasonable steps to inspect all of the flooring back in 2021 to identify issues, and do appropriate repairs.
The report from the survey in June 2023 indicates that the floor in part of the property had become rotten and had collapsed in places. It is unclear whether this was a living room or bedroom, as the report described it as the “right hand room”. The evidence from the report (photos and surveyors comments) shows that the room was unusable, due to the presence of a clear hazard. Living in a property in such a condition was evidently distressing for the resident.
Shortly after receiving this report, the landlord declined to decant the resident. It is noted that its decision was based on the lack of impact on the rest of the property of the basement works. However, given it had recently been issued with a report that indicated other parts of the property were unusable, its decision was unreasonable. This is further evidence that the landlord had a lack of oversight of the overall conditions of the property, and the resident’s circumstances. The lack of consideration of the resident’s individual circumstances, and his vulnerability is concerning.
The evidence indicates that the landlord completed works to repair the floor during the decant in 2023. It is unclear how long the floor had been in such a condition, but it is reasonable to conclude it had been for a significant period of time, given its condition. That landlord was not more proactive in attending to the repair until long after the resident exhausted its complaint process, was unreasonable. Its records show it sought to inspect the floors in 2021. To not act on an evident concern about the floors for nearly 2 years was unreasonable, and a significant failing.

Repairs to kitchen

It is not disputed that the new kitchen that the landlord fitted in 2021 was “unsafe” (due to the location of the cooker), and the workmanship was poor. This is further evidence that the landlord failed to properly oversee works contractors were completing on its behalf.
The evidence indicates that the landlord was on notice about the defective kitchen from November 2022, when another contractor identified it as “unsafe”. The landlord sought to rectify the issue in March 2023, and fit a new kitchen. This was 4 months after it became aware that the kitchen was poorly fitted, and contained potential hazards. That the landlord did not arrange this to take place within the timeframe of the complaint was a failing. Its response was well outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs policy, and a further failing in its handling of the issue.
The resident ultimately refused to have the kitchen installed to the proposed specification, in March 2023. The landlord clearly set out its position that it was happy with the design and was not prepared to change it. While evidently disappointing for the resident, the landlord’s approach in March 2023 was reasonable in the circumstances. It is noted that the landlord later agreed to redesign the kitchen, with the resident’s input. This was a reasonable approach, and this Service was pleased to hear the resident was happy with the new kitchen.

Repairs to back door

It is apparent that throughout the period covering this investigation the resident experienced issues with the back door. The landlord was on notice about the matter when his tenancy started in October 2020. The landlord identified the issue in its mutual exchange inspection, where it inappropriately identified it as a resident repair. However, there are no records of the issue within the repair log provided from that time. This is a further failing in its record keeping, and can reasonably be expected to have contributed to delays in resolving the issue.
The landlord attempted to repair the back door in January 2021, which was well outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs policy which is a further failing. It is noted that the landlord sought to book the repair with the resident but was unable to get through, the appointment was then booked in for 17 February 2022. The contractor cancelled the appointment, due to staff illness. The further delay was therefore somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord was unable to contact the resident to rebook the repair, and closed the job on 10 March 2021. At this point, the landlord had made reasonable attempts to progress with the repair.
The resident told this Service that the landlord replaced the door sometime in 2021, but did not remember exactly when. The records show the landlord cancelled the appointment to fit the new door, as it was unable to get access. From the evidence available it is not possible to determine if/when the door was replaced. The evidence does show the landlord made reasonable efforts to progress with the repair at that time.
By November 2023, there was a further issue with the door. The evidence shows that after it was put on notice about the door, the landlord failed to respond within the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. Its comment that it was “looking into” the repair was dismissive and evidently caused the resident frustration. The landlord completed the repair on 20 December 2023, 42 days after it was put on notice. Considering the resident’s concern that he could not secure his property; this delay was unreasonable. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have handled the repair with more urgency, given the conditions described.

Garden

The landlord was on notice about the repair to the garden steps from August 2020, when it completed the mutual exchange inspection. Despite telling the resident the repair was “in hand” ahead of him moving in, it failed to outline when it hoped to complete the repair. The records provided indicate that the landlord experienced delays in getting quotes from contractors. An explanation about the delay would have helped manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord completed the repair to the steps on 1 November 2020, this was an unreasonable delay and well outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. It is noted that the landlord’s notes reflect it had issues with contractors, so this delay was somewhat outside of its control.
The facts about the storage shed are disputed. The resident told this Service, in February 2024, that he was unhappy that it was still in his garden. However, the landlord has stated that it gifted it to him, at his request. The landlord’s records around the shed are poor. It is concerning that its internal emails about the issue indicate its own notes do not show when the shed was erected, or reflect any agreement about gifting the shed to him. The landlord has provided no evidence supporting its view that the resident asked to keep the shed. Given this record keeping shortcoming, and the disputed position on the shed, an appropriate order is set out below.

Repairs redress

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the role of this Service is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
While this Service welcomes the landlord’s decision to revisit its offers of compensation in order to try and put right its evident failings. It is concerning that after the resident exhausted its complaints procedure, it continued to make significant failings. At the end of the complaints procedure, the landlord offered a total of £1,000 in compensation for its handling of the issue, and no offer of compensation for the loss of amenity. The compensation the landlord offered at the end of the complaints procedure did not fully put things right for the resident, and did not reflect the loss of amenity the resident had experienced.
The landlord did not revisit its offer of compensation for well over a year after its final complaint response. This means that this Service does not consider it an offer of compensation made as part of the complaint. It is recognised that later offers of compensation were made. However, considering they were made well over a year after the resident exhausted its complaint procedure, this has impacted on the degree to which the offers put right the evident failings.
The landlord offered the resident a rent refund of 10% covering the period the substantive issues were outstanding (excluding the decant of 2023). This Service welcomes the landlord’s, albeit late, recognition of the loss of amenity suffered by the resident. However, the landlord’s compensation policy states it can offer up to 50% rent refund for loss of amenity. Given the extent of the loss of amenity suffered the figure of 10% was inappropriate.
It is evident that the resident had some use of his property, and as such was liable to pay rent. However, the landlord’s offer of 10% failed to consider that for a significant period he experienced the following losses of amenity:
1. A defective kitchen, that was assessed as “unsafe” from 2021 to December 2023.
2. A significant proportion of his garden was taken up with a temporary shed to store his belongings, while repairs were ongoing. This was from 2021 to present day.
3. From June 2023 to October 2023 the “right hand” room had a rotten floor that had collapsed in places, rendering the whole room unusable.
4. From January 2021 to October 2023, he was unable to use the basement to store belongings, due to the repeat floodings with sewage. It is noted that this was not a living space. However, the impact of repeated flooding, and the associated smells, evidently impacted on the resident’s enjoyment of other parts of his property.
Considering the above, this Service has ordered the landlord to pay a further 10% rent refund for loss of amenity totalling £1,768.88. This covers the same period as outlined in its “follow on” response of December 2023.
An additional amount totalling £140.20 is to be awarded to reflect the loss of amenity from 27 January 2021 as this was the date in which the landlord had knowledge of issues with the basement as well as other work orders still being outstanding. This has been calculated until 8 March 2021 which is the date the landlord had calculated its compensation from. The calculation would be an additional 20% of the weekly rent figure of £127.44 from 27 January 2021 to 8 March 2021. This would equate to 5 1//2 weeks at £25.49 which totals a further compensation award of £140.20.
The landlord accepted that its handling of the repairs was poor, and there were multiple failings. The detriment the resident experienced as a result of the failings is significant. He experienced 3 decants in total, 2 of which were lengthy. The conditions the resident was living in, including unusable rooms in his living space, and a storage area that was repeatedly flooded with sewage, were evidently distressing. It is concerning that the landlord lacked curiosity about his vulnerability and the impact the situation had on him.
The landlord offered the resident £4,500 for the inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs. A significant proportion of this offer was made well outside of the complaints process. We welcome the efforts the landlord made to try and put things right. But, the fact the final offer was made well outside of the complaints process impacts on the degree to which the offer put things right.
While the final offer of compensation is recognised, the repairs to the kitchen, some basement works (including fire safety works), and the rear door repair were still outstanding. As such, this means its compensation offer did not reflect the full detriment experienced. While showing genuine contrition and learning in its responses, the evidence shows the landlord did not fully learn from the outcomes. Despite acknowledging its coordination of the repairs, and its communication, was poor, it continued to make the same mistakes.
As such, this Service has determined there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs. We have made appropriate orders of compensation to reflect the additional distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs, and loss of amenity. We have also made a learning order to give the landlord the opportunity to reflect on its handling of the repairs, and implement its learning.
The Ombudsman has also ordered an additional inspection to identify whether any further fire safety works are required as the resident has contested all the fire safety works have not been completed.

Complaint handling

This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint in February 2021. This was a failing in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days, with the landlord setting out its understanding of what the complaint is about. That the landlord did not do so means the resident missed an opportunity to ensure it had the correct understanding of his complaint, and was left not knowing when, or if, it would respond.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint 25 working days after it was made. This was a shortcoming in the landlord’s complaint handling. It is noted that this was not an excessive delay, but the lack of acknowledgement or apology for the delay was inappropriate.
The resident expressed clear dissatisfaction with the landlord’s ongoing handling of the repairs, in November 2021. The landlord refused to engage with these concerns as a complaint, which was inappropriate. The landlord unreasonably relied on the fact the resident had submitted a ‘letter before action’ as a reason for not progressing with the complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy, and the Code, state that an issue subject to legal proceedings cannot be considered as a complaint. However, both cite that legal proceedings are defined as papers having been filed at court.
It is clear the resident had not taken such action. To block his complaint for that reason was obstructive and created an unfair, and hard to access, complaint process. The resident experienced an inconvenience of not having his concerns responded to as part of a formal complaint response.
The landlord appropriately took the resident’s complaint to stage 2, when he reminded it he had not actually commenced legal proceedings. It is noted that it took his feedback onboard, and continued with the complaint. But, the resident was cost time and trouble by needing to repeatedly ask it to consider his complaint. The stage 2 investigation was opened 4 months after it had initially refused to, which was an unreasonable delay.
When the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint it said it would respond by 13 April 2022. The resident experienced a further inconvenience of chasing it for a response in April 2022, and was told on 29 April 2022 it would respond by 6 May 2022. He experienced a further disappointment of it missing its deadline, without an explanation. The stage 2 response was sent on 12 May 2022, which was an unreasonable delay, in what had already been a protracted complaint process.
The landlord appropriately apologised for the complaint handing delays, and offered the resident £400 in compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and appropriately reflected the protracted complaint process that lasted over 2 years. As with the substantive issue, the majority of the offer of compensation for complaint handling was made well outside of the complaints process. Again, this impacts on the degree to which the offer put right its failings.
The landlord decided to repeatedly revisit its offers of compensation, by sending “follow on” responses, while the substantive issues of the case were outstanding. This was a reasonable approach. However, there was a lack of proactive follow up from the landlord, and it did not seek to offer further compensation until a significant period after the resident had requested assistance from this Service, in January 2023.
The final offer of compensation for complaint handling was made well outside of the complaint process. That it decided to do so is evidence that the landlord sought to try and put things right. That the landlord sought to put right further detriment the resident experienced throughout the process was reasonable.
In terms of its complaint handling, the landlord’s responses apologised and acknowledged there were delays, which was appropriate. The final offer of redress was appropriate, considering the detriment experienced by the resident. However, that the offer was made well outside the complaint process has resulted in a finding of maladministration. In addition, the responses lacked meaningful learning about the admitted failings in its complaint handling, and what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again.
We recently found similar failings in the landlord’s complaint handling for another case (reference: 202102403). In that determination we ordered the landlord to complete training with its complaint handling staff. The landlord provided evidence of compliance with that order on 1 March 2024. For the failings identified in this investigation we would have made a similar learning order. This report has not made an order for the landlord’s complaint handling practice, as it has already recently actioned what would have been ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

By accepting the property, the resident accepted it in the condition it was in at the time. It is unclear whether the resident completed his own inspection of the property to identify any issues. The landlord’s report lacked clarity, and its responses to the resident’s queries was dismissive. The landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange caused the resident an inconvenience.
There were significant delays to completing repairs, leaving the resident living in poor conditions. The resident experienced 2 lengthy decants, and a significant detriment as a result of the landlord’s failings. The landlord failed to have due regard for his vulnerabilities, and tailor its service accordingly. While showing genuine contrition and learning in its responses, it failed to put right its failings within the complaints procedure. The evidence shows it did not fully learn from the outcomes. Despite acknowledging its coordination of the repairs, and communication, was poor, it continued to make the same mistakes. At the time of the final offer of compensation some of the repairs remained outstanding.
The complaints process was hard to access and protracted. The landlord unreasonably refused to continue with the complaint. The landlord’s responses apologised and acknowledged there were delays, which was appropriate. The offer of redress was appropriate in the circumstances. There was a lack of follow up after the complaints process, despite the substantive issues remaining outstanding. The responses lacked meaningful learning about the admitted failings in its complaint handling, and what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Instruct a senior director to apologise, in person, for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £8,927.96 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the mutual exchange.
  2. The £4,500 it offered for the inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs (if it has not already done so).
  3. A further £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs.
  4. The £1,768.88 it offered for the resident’s loss of amenity (if it has not already done so).
  5. A further £1,768.88 in recognition of the resident’s loss of amenity (as outlined in paragraphs 89, 90, and 91).
  6. A further £140.20 in recognition of the resident’s loss of amenity between January 2021 and March 2021.
  7. The £400 it offered for its complaint handling (if it has not already done so).
3. Meet with the resident to discuss the storage shed, and agree whether it will be removed, or not. The landlord must write to the resident confirming what was agreed at the meeting. A copy of the letter must also be shared with this Service.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Complete a review of its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, and identify key points of learning to improve its service, with a particular focus on:
  1. Its poor communication with the resident.
  2. The lack of oversight and coordination with its contractors.
  3. The resident’s vulnerability and the lack of consideration of his individual circumstances.
  4. Its poor record keeping.
  5. The recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on knowledge and information management; and attitudes, respect, and rights.