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

Peabody Trust (202331993)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331993

Peabody Trust

13 September 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:
    1. Handling of reports of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives with her husband and 2 adult children. The property is a 3 bedroom third floor flat in a low rise block of flats (the block). She has lived at the property since June 2011.
  2. The resident reported issues with damp and mould to the landlord in February 2023. The landlord conducted a damp and mould wash on 26 February 2023 in one room and booked a further appointment for 15 March 2023. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said that there had been repeat issues that had been treated in the past unsuccessfully.
  3. The resident complained on 18 April 2023. She said the property had little or no insulation or damp proofing. It was exposed on all 4 sides and had a flat roof. The roof had been replaced 6-7 years before due to a leak. During lockdown the neighbours were given permission to install a roof garden. She believed that this contributed to the damp and mould. The mould was cleaned off by the landlord in summer but returned quickly and spread throughout the flat. She had asthma and had developed coughing fits in the property. She asked the landlord to inspect the property and draw up a plan to resolve the damp and mould.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day.
  5. The resident asked the landlord for updates on her complaint 3 times in May 2023. She told the landlord she was unhappy with the lack of communication on 12 June 2023. She asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
  6. She raised a further complaint, raising broadly the same issues on 30 June 2023.
  7. The landlord apologised for the lack of communication on 4 July 2023. It said that it conducted a damp and mould survey on 19 June 2023. It had reviewed the report and passed it to contractors to schedule works.
  8. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 7 July 2023. She wanted the landlord to act on the recommendations made in the surveyor’s report. She asked for a copy of the survey.
  9. The landlord’s records in July 2023 show that it had correspondence back and forth with its contractor. It was agreeing the details and schedule for the works.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 30 July 2023. She said that she had no response from her complaint or requests to escalate. She had not received a copy of the damp and mould report. Roofers had attended on 28 July 2023 and told her the roof needed to be replaced. There had been no action to resolve any of the issues in the property.
  11. The landlord replied on 1 August 2023 and said it was meeting with the contractor and would provide an update. The resident emailed it on 8 and 10 August 2023 seeking an update. She was unhappy with the lack of communication from the landlord.
  12. The landlord updated the resident by email on 11 August 2023. It said that the surveyor had recommended work to remedy mould on the walls and repair window frames in the property. The surveyor also recommended that the works to resolve the roof repairs were done before beginning internal works. The landlord passed the repairs to its contractor and was waiting for the date for works to begin.
  13. On 15 August 2023 the resident asked for details of the works planned in the property. She asked the landlord to clarify its position regarding the use of the roof as a communal garden. She asked for the landlord’s investigation and findings for her complaints. She wanted her complaint to be escalated.
  14. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 August 2023. It said:
    1. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and the delay to issue its stage 1 response.
    2. There had been issues with the contractor being able to conduct the repairs. It had arranged for a new contractor to inspect the roof garden on 21 August 2023.
    3. The windows were scheduled to be repaired on 8 September 2023.
    4. The resident had turned down the offer of a mould wash because she wanted the roof repairs to be resolved. It recommended that she reconsider the offer and allow the mould wash in the interim.
    5. It would escalate her complaint to stage 2.
  15. On 18 August 2023 there was correspondence between the landlord and the resident by email. The resident asked if the landlord would install noise dampening or additional insulation to the roof. The landlord said that it would provide standard insulation only.
  16. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint by email on 24 August 2023.
  17. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 September 2023. It set out its understanding of the complaint and the issues raised about its complaint handling. It provided a chronology of events between April and September 2023. It upheld the complaint. It said:
    1. It apologised for its poor communication and complaint handling at stage 1. There was a failure to respond in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaint handling policy. The resident had made multiple requests to escalate her complaint that were not actioned.
    2. Its records showed that damp and mould had been reported in February 2022. Its treatments were ineffective and the issues returned in November 2022. It noted that the works order in February 2023 referred to repeat attempts to clean the mould before it returned. Its records showed that the resident had medical issues and was potentially vulnerable being “placed in a poor situation”.
    3. The survey in June 2023 said the garden roof required urgent attention. This was repeated in July 2023. It was disappointed that the roofing survey was only conducted on 8 September 2023. It would chase the contractor urgently for the result of the survey. It apologised for the frustration the delays caused and recognised that the internal works had been put on hold while external issues were resolved.
    4. It allocated the outstanding repairs to a specialist team for monitoring. The team would maintain regular contact with the contractor and the resident. It would follow up on the roof survey and consider if the damages were caused by the change of use to a roof garden.
    5. It offered £700 compensation. This consisted of:
      1. £500 for time, trouble, and inconvenience. It was made in accordance with extensive disruption in its compensation policy.
      2. £250 for complaint handling. It reflected on the lack of response to correspondence, delay to issue, and quality of its stage 1 response. It was made in accordance with severe failure in its compensation policy and was its maximum award payable.
  18. The resident disputed the landlord’s chronology in an email to it on 19 September 2023. She said that the issues with damp and mould began in 2012. There were many mould washes conducted over the years. She wanted the landlord to damp proof or insulate against sound while repairing the roof. She asked for clarification regarding repairs to the windows and kitchen. She asked if the landlord would redecorate once internal works were complete.
  19. The contractor sealed the balcony windows and doors and repaired cracks in the balcony on 26 September 2023. From this until 24 October 2023 the records show messages back and forth between the landlord and its contractor. The contractor sent a quote for the works, which the landlord sought to approve.
  20. The resident emailed the landlord on 24 October 2023 with an email trail highlighting the outstanding repairs. She said that she reported the issues in June 2023 and nothing had happened.
  21. The landlord repaired the balcony and windows on 20 November 2023. The resident emailed the landlord the same day to say she had no update regarding her repairs since 13 October 2023. The landlord replied to say it was awaiting approval for the costs involved with the repairs.
  22. On 1 December 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to question why the works were taking so long. She was concerned that the damp and mould would return and the impact this had on her health. The landlord said the repairs were more complex than it first thought.
  23. The landlord’s internal records between December 2023 and July 2024 show that it received the quote for works from its contractor. It believed that the costs were high and was considering other means to resolve the issues. It updated the resident after she contacted it on 9 February 2024. It said there was a significant delay and would update the resident. The landlord recorded that internal works were complete on 7 May 2024. It sought updates from the surveyor regarding external works in July 2024.
  24. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 24 July 2024. She provided a chronology of events reflective of the above. She said that from September 2023 she received updates from the landlord saying that it was waiting on quotes, or approval to begin works. She sought help from a tenant and residents association in February 2024 to get the works resolved. Damp and mould returned around the same time and the landlord conducted a further mould wash throughout the property. A surveyor visited in April 2024 and arranged for two walls to be skimmed and treated with anti-mould paint. The kitchen and bathroom had new flooring and new fans installed. The works took around 2 weeks. Further surveyors attended who gave conflicting advice over the cause of damp and mould in the property. The roof was not repaired and no action was taken to install a waterproof membrane between the roof and the ceiling.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy provide timescales to conduct repairs dependent on the severity of the issue. It says that non–urgent repairs are completed within 28 calendar days. Programmed repairs and specialist works are completed within 60 calendar days. It describes window replacements, roofing works with scaffolding, and damp works to be programmed repairs.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy in place at the time said that it will consider compensation where there has been a failure to provide a service. It awards compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience dependent on the level of disruption caused. It awards £1-£200 minor disruption, £201-£400 for moderate disruption, and £401-£600 for extensive disruption. It awards compensation for complaint handling similarly. It awards £1-£50 for minor failure, £51-£150 for moderate failure, and £151-£250 for severe failure.
  3. The landlord operated a 2 stage complaint process. It states that it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. Each response can be extended by 10 working days with the consent of the complainant.

Handling of reports of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs.

  1. Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair. It must also ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. It is also required to look at the condition of its properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards.
  2. Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. The landlord should be aware of its obligations under HHSRS. It is expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. There was an increased risk of harm to the resident, as the damp and mould were present in the bedrooms of the property.
  3. The above timeline suggests the landlord was aware of damp and mould problem at the property from around February 2022. However, the records relating to the landlord’s handling of the reports were only available from February 2023. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is essential to evidence the action the landlord has taken which then aids in its service delivery, enabling it to respond professionally when something goes wrong. In this case it would have ensured that there were clear reasons for its decision making, that it could have shared with the resident.
  4. In reviewing the evidence, the landlord’s record keeping contributed to its poor management of the damp and mould and associated repairs. This impacted both its ability to resolve the substantive issue as well as the associated complaint. This caused delays, as well as further annoyance and frustration to the resident, in her pursuit to resolve matters.
  5. The landlord’s response to the repairs reported in February 2023 were done in accordance with its repairs policy. It was appropriate to respond to the initial reports as non-urgent repairs. It appropriately conducted mould washes on 26 February and 15 March 2023.
  6. Following the resident’s request on 18 April 2023, the landlord inspected the property broadly within the timescales set out in its policy. The landlord’s responses show that it conducted a survey on 19 June 2023. This was around 62 calendar days later. It was appropriate to survey the property and understand the underlying cause of the damp and mould. However, the results of the survey were unavailable for the Ombudsman to consider. This is a continuation of the record keeping issues that affected the landlord’s action in this case. Additionally, the landlord failed to provide these surveys to the resident when she asked to review them later in the timeline. The failure to maintain accurate records in this case caused the resident undue time and trouble to pursue her complaint.
  7. In the absence of any clear records of the survey, it is difficult to measure the impact these delays had on the resident. The landlord should have scheduled the works promptly following the survey on 19 June 2023. However, the landlord did not schedule any repairs until it conducted some minor works on 26 September 2023. This was 99 calendar days later. Despite the resident chasing the landlord frequently in July and August 2023, there was a delay of around 29 calendar days. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide updates by email in August 2023. It was clear with the resident with the reasons for the delay and its records show that it was in regular contact with its contractor. However, the resident took considerable time and trouble chasing the landlord throughout the above timeline. The resident told the landlord in her emails that she was becoming increasingly frustrated by the delays and poor communication.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 14 September 2023 was reasonable. It broadly complied with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. It was clear with the resident regarding the delays to conduct the repairs and its apology for this issue was appropriate. Its decision to allocate the outstanding repairs to a specialist team for monitoring was positive and demonstrated its intention to resolve the substantive issues. Its offer of £500 compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience was reflective of the extensive disruption caused to the resident.
  9. The landlord failed to maintain the commitments set out in its stage 2 response. Despite its attendance on 26 September 2023 to conduct some works to the balcony, there were considerable delays to resolve the outstanding works. The landlord should have maintained greater oversight of the case and committed itself to resolving the substantive issues causing damp and mould in the property. The resident had highlighted the impact that damp and mould had on her health, so it was aware of the increased risks present in the property. Its delays to approve the works compounded these issues and further contributed to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  10. The landlord took around 5 months to repair the balcony and windows on 20 November 2023 following the inspection in June 2023. It took around 11 months to begin internal works to replace the plaster and treat the internal impact of damp and mould in May 2024. The delays to resolve these repairs would have caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
  11. The landlord has taken more than 12 months to conduct any repairs to the roof, despite the concerns identified in June and July 2023. Its records suggest that it believed the roof was a contributory factor to the damp and mould in the property. In its stage 1 response on 18 August 2023, it said that internal works would be on hold until it repaired the roof. It said that the roof needed urgent attention. Despite these concerns, it did not conduct the roof repairs before it began the internal works in May 2024. The delays to resolve these repairs would have contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  12. In addition to the delays to conduct the repairs, the resident took considerable time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates. It is clear from her correspondence that she became increasingly frustrated by the landlord’s responses, which she felt were dismissive. She took additional time and trouble involving a third party in February 2024 before the landlord surveyed the property again in April 2024. The landlord should have maintained regular communication with the resident to manage this case.
  13. The landlord did not resolve the resident’s concerns about the change of use of the roof, which she first raised on 18 April 2023. In its stage 2 response on 24 August 2023 the landlord said that it would consider if the damages to the roof were a result of its change of use. There were no records available to the Ombudsman that the landlord provided any further response in this regard to the resident. By failing to follow through with the commitments set out in its complaint responses, the landlord has not treated the resident fairly.
  14. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs. The landlord’s initial response to reports of damp and mould were appropriate. It conducted mould washes promptly and inspected the property in accordance with its policy and procedures. Its offer of compensation at stage 2 was appropriate and it demonstrated its intention to put things right. However, there were substantial delays to conduct the repairs following the stage 2 response. The resident took considerable time and trouble to pursue the repairs. The landlord’s failure to maintain accurate records impacted its ability to resolve the substantive issues. It has failed to respond fairly to the resident’s concerns about the change of use of the roof to a roof garden. There was no evidence to show that it has conducted any repairs to the roof. The landlord should pay the resident additional compensation of £800. This is comprised of:
    1. £300 for her time and trouble.
    2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint handling.

  1. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Its response at stage 1 was outside those timeframes. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 18 August 2023 was issued around 85 working days after the resident complained on 18 April 2023. In the interim period the resident made frequent requests for updates by email. She took considerable time and trouble pursuing her complaint. The records show that she became increasingly frustrated by the lack of response.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 response did acknowledge the resident’s time and trouble. It appropriately apologised for the inconvenience caused and the delay to issue its response and immediately escalated it to stage 2. Its actions were reasonable and its decision to escalate the complaint was fair in the circumstances.
  3. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether the landlord’s response was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: ‘be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes’.
  4. The landlord used its stage 2 response to reflect on its complaint handling failures. Its decision to uphold the complaint and apologise for its poor communication and complaint handling at stage 1 was appropriate. It was fair to recognise its failure to respond within its own timescales or to action the resident’s requests to escalate her complaint sooner. Its offer of £250 compensation for its complaint handling failures demonstrated its intention to put things right and was reflective of the detriment caused.
  5. The Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. Although the delays to issue its stage 1 response were substantial, the landlord addressed its failures within its complaint handling. It was fair with the resident by accepting its failures. Its apology at both stage 1 and 2 was appropriate and its offer of compensation at stage 2 was reflective of its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was an offer of reasonable redress made in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £800. This order is made in addition to the £700 awarded by the landlord in its stage 2 response. It is comprised of:
      1. £300 for time and trouble.
      2. £500 for distress and inconvenience.
    3. Conduct a survey of the property and roof to identify the cause of damp and mould in the property. Share a copy of the survey with the resident. It must consider the suitability of the roof to be used as communal garden. Once the survey is complete, the landlord must provide a schedule of works to resolve any issues highlighted in the report. It should provide a single point of contact for the resident who can provide regular updates on a frequency agreed with her. It should ensure that all repairs are scheduled within 4 weeks of the survey and resolved within 8 weeks.
    4. Provide evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.