Peabody Trust (202231718)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231718

Peabody Trust

28 February 2025

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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy for a flat, which began in 2019. The resident’s rent is approximately £570 per month.
3. The resident has described himself as disabled and is in receipt of Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
4. The resident reported that two of the radiators in his property had stopped working completely, and the others were not reaching full temperature, at the start of January 2023.
5. On 2 February 2023 the landlord’s contractor carried out a “power flush” to the heating system. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord that day, and reported that the heating and hot water had stopped working completely after the flush – this was due to problems with the pipework and boiler. He also explained that the contractor had left a lot of mess and damaged his carpet while carrying out the repairs, and asked the landlord for compensation.
6. The contractor offered the resident the use of temporary heaters, but he was concerned that he could not afford to run them. He did take 2 temporary heaters, but has explained to us that due to his property being old and having high ceilings, they were not sufficient to get the rooms to a comfortable temperature.
7. The resident chased the repairs on 17 February 2023 and told the landlord he was due to go to hospital to have surgery. He told it he had been prescribed anti-biotics for a chest infection and was having to use his inhaler for breathing problems. He expressed concern that the situation could have a severe impact on his health.
8. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 21 February 2023. It:
   1. Apologised that the repairs had taken “longer than [it] would have liked”;
   2. Said the complaint handler would be the resident’s point of contact until the repairs were completed;
   3. Gave an “action plan” for the works, which confirmed the reference number for a “heating and hot water” repair raised to its contractor but did not give timescales for an appointment date;
   4. Confirmed that when the repairs were completed it would check the resident was satisfied with the outcome, offer compensation that would take into account service failures “that may have occurred” through the course of the repairs, and advise the lessons it had learnt.
9. On 28 February 2023 the resident told the landlord the contractor had attended (and noted this was the sixth person to attend), and they could not carry out the repair. He reminded the landlord he was recovering from a recent chest infection, his flat was “freezing”, and asked it to either make sure the contractor completed the repair or use a different company. 
10. On 10 March 2023 the resident told the landlord that another operative from the contractor had attended, with new parts, but had not been able to fix the system. He emphasised that he had been without heating or hot water for 5 weeks by then, and that it was affecting his mental as well as physical health. He asked to be given temporary accommodation until the works were completed.
11. The landlord’s contractor attended on 21 March 2023, and told the landlord it had carried out replastering, renewed a light fitting, and replaced the carpet. 
12. The resident contacted a solicitor and submitted a disrepair letter of claim about the heating and hot water to the landlord in April 2023. It raised another repair to its contractor on 14 April 2023, a part was ordered on 24 April 2023, and the installation of this was completed on 27 April 2023. The contractor confirmed that this had fixed the issue.
13. The landlord offered the resident £560 compensation for loss of hot water between 1 January 2023 and 27 April 2023, his time and trouble, and the inconvenience of using the temporary heaters over 2 months.
14. On 2 May 2023 the resident reported a further loss of heating and hot water, and this was repaired the next day – it was found to be due to a leak from the boiler overflow and the boiler had to be reset several times.
15. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 and asked the landlord to increase its offer of compensation. It acknowledged the escalation request on 15 May 2023.
16. During June 2023, there was a leak in the flat, which was unrelated to the heating and hot water system. While being outside the scope of the resident’s complaint and this investigation, we recognise that this added to his overall frustration.
17. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 16 June 2023. It:
    1. Confirmed there was evidence of the resident “experiencing a poor service”, which included water damage to the carpet and kitchen flooring, missed appointments, “excessive” visits, and “poor workmanship” by its contractor;
    2. Confirmed that temporary heaters should have been offered to the resident before he submitted a complaint;
    3. Said that it only offered a rent rebate when there was “room loss”;
    4. Explained general improvements it was making to its repairs service, including for vulnerable residents;
    5. Acknowledged there had been a “lack of detailed investigation” at stage 1 of its complaint process, and that due to the number of people involved the resident had had to chase updates and explain his situation several times;
    6. Acknowledged the resident wanted the “causal link” between his health and the repairs to be addressed, and explained that this would need to be dealt with by its insurance team – it said he was not “correctly signposted” at stage 1;
    7. Apologised for the service the resident received, and offered a total of £850 compensation, made up of:
       1. £250 for failures in its handling of his complaint at stage 1;
       2. £600 (which it said was the maximum its policy allowed) for time, trouble and inconvenience;
    8. Said it would arrange for the carpet to be deep cleaned and asked the resident to confirm if he wanted this.
18. The landlord’s records show there was another loss of heating and hot water in July 2023 due to the pressurisation of the system, and this was fixed on the same day.
19. The resident has advised us that the carpet has not been cleaned and he would like the landlord to arrange this. It appears that he did not confirm this directly to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

20. The resident was left for approximately a month without a fully functioning heating system, and then for nearly 3 more months with the hot water also not working. This meant he had no bathing facilities, and limited heating from 2 temporary heaters only.
21. We recognise that this experience was very distressing for the resident and added to by the physical and mental health conditions he reported to the landlord. The landlord was correct to advise him that compensation for medical matters are not dealt with through the complaints process, and that he can submit a claim to its insurance team instead.
22. It is concerning that we have not seen evidence that the landlord adapted its approach when the resident told it of his health conditions and disability. It advised us that it does not have any vulnerability recorded for him.
23. We did not see evidence that the landlord considered whether the resident was disabled under the Equality Act 2020. Under the Act, the landlord would have a responsibility to consider putting in place reasonable adjustments where appropriate. We would expect the landlord to consider the resident’s health conditions in any event.
24. Appropriate steps we would have expected to see from it include a risk assessment, consideration of providing additional heaters, and, importantly, a response to the resident’s request for temporary accommodation.
25. Another factor we would have expected to see the landlord to include in its decision making was the type of property itself. The resident explained to us that because his building is old, it has high ceilings and can be more difficult to get to a comfortable temperature. The landlord did not do enough to demonstrate it had included this as part of its decision-making.
26. Even after the landlord made its final offer of compensation, the resident needed to chase it for payment of this. This, in addition to the fact that the carpet cleaning has not been completed, suggests that the landlord’s approach to the completion of its promised remedies to complaints could be improved. While we can see that the landlord asked the resident to confirm if he was happy for the carpets to be cleaned, this placed the burden on him, when it could reasonably have proactively contacted him to check this itself. This is especially important because it knew the resident was vulnerable.
27. Given the overall impact of the situation on the resident, his disability, the length of time taken and number of appointments needed to identify the problem and get the heating system working, we do not consider the landlord’s offer of compensation to be proportionate.
28. In summary, there were serious failings from the landlord to look at the specific circumstances of the case, and to adapt its approach in response. Its complaint responses did not adequately put things right, however its stage 2 complaint response did demonstrate that it had made steps towards this. On balance, there was service failure from the landlord.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

30. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must contact the resident to confirm an appointment to clean the carpet. It must confirm to us when this has been done.
31. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must confirm it has directly paid the resident a total of £1,250 compensation, including the £850 already offered and made up of:
    1. £250 it previously offered for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in complaint handling at stage 1;
    2. £800 for the impact of the loss of heating and hot water (equivalent to approximately £20% of the resident’s rent for January 2023 and 40% of the resident’s rent for February to April 2023);
    3. £200 for the impact of the failure to acknowledge and address the resident’s needs in the specific situation.
32. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should apologise to the resident for the distress he was caused through its failure to adequately centre his wellbeing in its responses.

Recommendations

33. We recommend the landlord considers how it tracks, monitors, and ensures completion of actions promised as part of its complaint resolutions, and whether it could make improvements to ensure they are completed in a timely way.
34. We recommend the landlord considers whether it has sufficient processes in place to allow for consideration of the impact of a loss of heating in different property types within its stock.