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

Peabody Trust (202117274)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117274

Peabody Trust

26 September 2023


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 regarding the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s repair requests including issues relating to damp, a back downpipe, scaffolding and cellar steps. 
    2. Handling of the resident’s repair requests including issues relating to a front downpipe, a boiler out pipe, asbestos and a slug infestation.
    3. Carrying out of unannounced visits to the resident’s property.
    4. Communication and complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repair requests relating to damp, back downpipe and cellar steps.
  3. Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. The repairs referred to above formed part of a disrepair claim lodged against the landlord by the resident and she therefore had the opportunity to address those matters during the disrepair proceedings.
  4. In correspondence with this service, the resident outlined which repairs formed part of the disrepair claim and which did not. Although it is acknowledged she advised that the cellar steps did not form part of the disrepair claim, having reviewed the Particulars of Claim document submitted to the court and the Scott Schedule, the Ombudsman notes that they were included and are therefore also considered to be outside of jurisdiction.
  5. Matters relating to a front downpipe, a boiler out pipe, asbestos and a slug infestation all fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and this investigation will consider the landlord’s response to and handling of these issues.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has resided in the property, a 2-bedroom maisonette, since 2011.

Scope of investigation

  1. Since referring her complaints to this service, the resident submitted information regarding a decant and further repair issues, some of which relate to this year. As these issues did not form part of the resident’s original complaint, they will be considered within this investigation. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  2. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of or response to concerns regarding a decant or repair issues raised after the landlord’s final complaint response, she may wish to log a new complaint. If she remains dissatisfied with its complaint response, once she has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, she retains the right to escalate her complaint to this service. 

Summary of events

  1. On 28 October 2021, the resident emailed a complaint to the landlord. She stated she had made several previous complaints but that, after consulting with this service, had been advised to address the outstanding issues within one complaint. Her concerns regarded the following:
    1. Unannounced visits – she cited at least 6 attempted visits between 16 July 2020 and 13 September 2021 relating to various issues. She stated she wished to make a new complaint specifically about a visit on 27 October 2021, when a surveyor and contractor “attempted to gain access” to her property after attending another appointment at a neighbouring address.
    2. Repair issues and associated complaints not being progressed – the resident stated she had raised a number of repair requests or concerns relating to her damp cellar, front and back downpipes, asbestos, a boiler out pipe, scaffolding, a slug infestation, damp course works in her kitchen and bathroom and replacement of steps to her cellar between 16 July 2020 (regarding the asbestos) and 25 October 2021 (regarding the cellar steps). She had raised 4 separate complaints regarding the above repairs between 1 September and 28 October 2021 and had requested further information regarding the asbestos on 13 and 26 August 2021.
    3. She had requested that the landlord not contact her by phone, but this had not “stopped (it) from calling” as a member of staff had called her regarding a scaffolding appointment, which she claimed she had not agreed to.
  2. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 24 November 2021. It noted the resident had sent several emails and advised it would respond to each point in turn:
    1. Regarding a reported visit on 16 July 2020, the landlord advised its contractor had stated they had not attended her property on that day. The contractor had advised it attended most recently in September 2021 and prior to that in February 2021 when attending a communal area.
    2. Its Repairs Team were “unfamiliar with the surveyor (Company Name) or what the visit would have been for”. If the resident was able to supply further information, it would “try and look into this further”.
    3. Visits which took place on 9 April and 13 September 2021 were related to a disrepair case and “therefore cannot be considered under our complaints process”. It advised her to contact her legal representatives about this issue.
    4. On 27 October 2021, it advised that its operative had “attempted to contact” the resident but had been unable to reach her. They were due to attend a neighbouring property and therefore wanted to “take this opportunity to attend (the resident’s property) at the same time”. It advised this was because the resident had advised that a contractor had previously attended without completing certain works and the landlord’s visit was therefore intended to try and resolve the issue. It noted that entry was refused as the resident stated it was not a convenient time and apologised for any inconvenience caused.
    5. Regarding repair issues, the landlord noted the following:
      1. Damp cellar – it stated it did not have a record of any contact from the resident on 9 or 26 of August (the year was unspecified) although it was “aware that these works needed to be done”. It noted that only emergency repairs were carried out during the COVID-19 related lockdown and once restrictions had been lifted, the backlog of repairs caused severe delays. It noted the resident had complained on 1 September 2021 and requested the landlord advise what works would be done and when, to which it replied on 27 September, clarifying works would begin on 13 October and last three days. It stated the work was completed as planned and the complaint was not escalated as the requested information was provided.
      2. Back downpipe – it advised it would not comment on this as it formed part of a disrepair claim. It provided the same response regarding reported issues with scaffolding and damp in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom.
      3. Front downpipe – it advised this was “due to be resolved” at the same time as the back downpipe. It noted the resident complained on 1 September and for the landlord to advise when and how it would carry out a repair or replacement. It advised the back downpipe was due to be repaired on 4 October 2021 “at the same time as the rear downpipe which is part of (her) disrepair claim”. It directed the resident to contact her legal representatives regarding the back downpipe and arrange a convenient time for this to be repaired as “both issues will then be looked into at the same time”.
      4. Asbestos – it advised it had consulted with the relevant operative and they did not recall receiving any emails from the resident. It stated the resident’s property had already been “inspected for asbestos on 20 June 2019”, when it was determined that no asbestos was present. No further inspection was therefore necessary. It apologized if this had not been explained to her. 
      5. Boiler out pipe – it did not have a record of receiving a repair request on 27 August 2021. It noted the resident had logged a complaint on 14 October 2021, when she requested the landlord provide a time for when a repair would be completed. It advised it had responded the following day with a proposal for a morning appointment on 20 October 2021 and the repair was completed at that time.
      6. Slug infestation – it stated it could not identify who the resident had contacted regarding slugs in her property. It advised it had consulted its Estate Services Team and, although it would “usually” not intervene in treating a slug infestation and would instead advise residents to treat the issue themselves with either salt or slug pellets, in this case it would investigate the issue and attend on 24 November 2021.
      7. Leak on boiler – regarding a report received on 5 November (the year was not stated but it is assumed to be 2021), it contacted her on 15 November to confirm an appointment for 18 November. As a further appointment was required to complete the repair, it offered two possible dates and noted the resident had accepted an appointment for 29 November.
      8. Cellar steps replacement – it advised it had explained previously that it attended the property “after we attempted to contact you” and reiterated this had been to try and “resolve the issue as quickly as possible”. It apologized that its attendance had been inconvenient, advised it was “scheduling for this work to be carried out” and would contact the resident in advance to “ensure the date is suitable”.
    6. It advised it had marked on its systems that the resident would only be contacted by email from now on. It apologized for any inconvenience it had caused by calling her to discuss scaffolding related to the disrepair issue. It also noted that “one more than one occasion” the resident had advised she had made contact, but it had no record of any calls. It “wanted to ensure” the resident was directing her enquiries to the right service area and advised that result in responses being delayed or her enquiries “not reach(ing) the correct department at all”. It provided details of who the resident should contact to report repairs and raise complaints.
  3. On 22 December 2021, the landlord provided its final stage complaint response. It summarised the resident’s complaints as regarding:
    1. Its operatives making unannounced visits (it also noted a new complaint logged on 27 October 2021 regarding a further unannounced visit).
    2. It mishandled her repair requests.
    3. It continued to contact her by phone when she asked for email contact only.
    4. A downpipe at the front of her house had not been fixed despite a scaffold being erected.
  4. It acknowledged she remained unhappy with its previous response, sent on 24 November 2021 and that, following a review of the case, it made the following observations:
    1. Regarding a visit carried out on 24 September 2020, the landlord advised a company acting on its behalf attended the resident’s property as part of its undertaking of a stock condition survey. It noted it had written to all residents to advise that surveys would take place between 24 August and 18 December 2020 and that residents were given the option of arranging a specific appointment time. It attached a template of the letter, which it stated had outlined why the survey was necessary and how it complied with COVID-19 related guidance in place at the time.
    2. On 26 October 2021, it acknowledged that two operatives had, after first attending a neighbouring property, attempted to visit the resident unannounced. It noted she had requested that operatives do not attend without an appointment and that, while it did “respect (her) wishes”, it advised that on this occasion it had “believed it to be in the interest of resolving repair matters as effectively and efficiently as possible, for everyone involved”. It clarified this was not usually how appointments were made and would “ensure this does not happen again in future”. It noted its stage 1 response had already acknowledged this it apologized again for any inconvenience caused.
    3. It noted the resident had an ongoing disrepair claim. It would therefore not comment on any matters related to the claim within its complaint response.   
    4. It considered the resident’s concerns regarding “slugs, leaks on boiler pipe and cellar steps” had all been “satisfactorily addressed” within its stage 1 response.
    5. It acknowledged the resident’s preference to not be contacted by phone and stated it would delete her phone number from its systems, although it noted this meant she would not be opted in to any future text messaging services. It advised it would either email or write to her regarding any “(non-emergency) future appointments” but that this may “impact resolution time” as emails may not be read or responded to immediately by either party.
    6. It advised her request for “copies of (her) records” was being handled by its Data Protection Team as a Subject Access Request.
    7. It advised it would be asking its Neighbourhood Customer Specialist to introduce herself to the resident to discuss “how best she can work with you as your first point of contact” and provide support. It stated this would be an opportunity for it to better “understand your expectation of us”.
  5. Following the landlord’s final response, the resident contacted it on several occasions in December 2023 to advise the slug infestation had not been resolved, despite the attendance of a pest control contractor. She advised that she now did not feel able to use her kitchen and was relying on takeaway meals. She stated she expected the landlord to pay for these, along with a further pest control appointment she had arranged privately. There is no record of the landlord responding to the resident’s correspondence.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs including a front downpipe, a boiler out pipe, asbestos and a slug infestation

  1. It is noted that the repair records provided to this service by the landlord lack detail and were not provided in an easily accessible format (being mainly based on email correspondence), meaning it has at times been difficult for the Ombudsman to determine whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s repair reports. This is not appropriate and has meant the landlord has been unable to effectively demonstrate the steps it took to address some of the reported issues. Regarding each of the 4 repair issues noted in the complaint definition, while the resident’s complaint noted the date, she believed she had raised each issue, this service has not seen evidence of when the landlord became aware of the repairs, save for the boiler out pipe. However, it is not disputed that the landlord was made aware of each individual repair concern by 28 October 2021 at the latest, the date of the resident’s complaint.

Front downpipe

  1. In her complaint, the resident advised she had raised a repair request regarding the front downpipe on 12 August 2021 and again on 26 August 2021. This service has not seen evidence of those requests, or of them being logged by the landlord. However, it is noted that the landlord had been dealing with a repair request relating to the back downpipe, which formed part of the disrepair claim. It is therefore reasonable to assume the landlord was already aware of the issue prior to the resident’s complaint.
  2. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that on 1 September 2021, the resident had requested it clarify how and when it would complete the repair. It advised the front downpipe would be repaired at the same time as the back downpipe and therefore directed the resident to her legal representatives to arrange an appointment. While the front downpipe did not form part of the disrepair claim, it was reasonable of the landlord to want to repair it at the same time as the back downpipe. Although it may have caused a further delay and frustration for the resident, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it made sense that the landlord wanted to carry out the repair according to a schedule agreed as part of the claim, rather than making separate bookings or arranging an appointment for the front downpipe and attempting to resolve a disrepair issue at the same time, and this was a reasonable position for it to take.

Boiler out pipe

  1. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised it did not have a record of receiving a repair request until the resident submitted a complaint on 14 October 2021, when she asked it to provide a repair appointment. While it advised it responded the following day, offering an appointment for 20 October 2021 which was attended as planned, this service has not seen evidence of the reply. However, its repair logs, which are not fully readable, do show it logged an unidentified repair on 15 October and this is marked as being completed on 20 October 2021. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did not provide any further information, advising it considered it had responded in full at stage 1. Although further details regarding the repair would have been helpful, this does indicate the landlord responded in an appropriate fashion and attended within the timeframe stated in its repair policy.
  2. It is unclear whether the resident’s subsequent report of a leak from a boiler pipe relates to the same issue or not. However, from the information available, she notified the landlord of a further leak on 5 November 2021, when she wrote to its Chief Executive. Correspondence between the resident and landlord shows that the resident confirmed this had been repaired on 29 November 2021 and the landlord’s repair records do show that a repair was completed on this date. However, the repair was not raised until 14 November 2021, some 9 days after the resident’s initial report, and was not completed for 16 working days, outside its target for non-urgent repairs. While it is acknowledged there may have been some delay in raising an order due to the report not initially being sent to the landlord’s repair service, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have acknowledged that the repair was completed outside of its target. It missed an opportunity to explain why the delay had occurred and to consider whether it was appropriate to offer redress to the resident, even if just in the form of an apology. 
  3. Even though the delay to the repair was not significant, based on the lack of detailed repair records and fact the delay was both unexplained and unacknowledged, the Ombudsman considers there was service failure by the landlord. An order has therefore been made to pay the resident compensation.

Asbestos

  1. Within her complaint, the resident also cited concerns regarding asbestos, noting there had been three “separate unannounced visits…re asbestos” on 16 July 2020. She also stated she had requested information on 13 and 26 August 2021. This service has not seen the requests the resident submitted so it is unclear what information she requested. These details also do not appear within the landlord’s records.
  2. However, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response clarified that the resident’s property had been surveyed in June 2019 and was found not to contain asbestos. It apologised if this had not been explained at the time. Internal landlord correspondence shows it made appropriate enquiries during its complaint investigation and determined that there was no need for any further inspection of the property as it had already determined no asbestos was present. It was appropriate that its complaint response clarified its position which, based on the evidence available, was a reasonable one for it to take. It also appropriately offered an apology if this information had not been provided previously. From the evidence available, once the resident had raised her concerns regarding asbestos in her October 2021 complaint, the landlord responded reasonably and there is no evidence of service failure. However, a recommendation is made at the end of this report for the landlord to share details of the June 2019 survey so it may provide her reassurance regarding the presence, or lack thereof, of asbestos within her property. 

Slug infestation

  1. Regarding the reported slug infestation, in her complaint the resident advised she first reported this to the landlord on 7 October 2021. In internal correspondence on 14 November 2021, the landlord noted the “issue will need to be reported to Estate Services to see if they can pick up as part of pest control”. From the information available, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence the landlord was aware of a reported issue with slugs prior to the resident’s complaint of 28 October 2021. There is therefore no evidence that it failed to appropriately respond to any initial report from the resident.
  2. However, the landlord could have been more proactive in responding to the resident’s reports once it received her complaint. There is no evidence as to when it did so, and the resident felt the need to send a chaser email on 5 November 2021 in which she asked for an update. It is noted the resident directly contacted the landlord’s Chief Executive, the local authority’s Environment Health team and this service rather than the landlord’s repairs or complaints teams, which may have caused a delay. That being the case, there is no evidence the landlord had responded to the resident by the time it discussed the matter internally on 14 November, over 2 weeks later. This was not appropriate and evidently caused the resident distress and a degree of uncertainty.
  3. Again, the lack of detail within the landlord’s repair records mean it is difficult to determine whether it responded to the resident’s reports reasonably or not. Its stage 1 complaint response advised an appointment had been booked with a pest control service on 24 November 2021 and later correspondence from the resident to the landlord confirmed she had been contacted by its contractor on 22 November 2021, with the appointment taking place 2 days later. This does indicate the landlord had progressed the issue and an appointment had been made within 4 weeks of the resident’s initial report. While this is outside the landlord’s stated 10 working day target for routine, non-emergency repairs, it is acknowledged that the landlord first needed to establish whether it would assist, given that pest control issues are often a tenant’s responsibility, so the Ombudsman does not consider this to have been a severe delay. It was also positive, and resolution focused of the landlord to use its discretion and for its Estate Services team to engage the services of a pest controller to try and resolve the issue.
  4. Once the initial appointment had taken place, the resident contacted the landlord on 5, 13 and 18 December 2021 to report that the problem had not been resolved. Her email of 5 December 2021 advised that, although the leak had been repaired on 29 November, dampness remained and this was a “breeding ground” for slugs and as such, she no longer felt comfortable using her kitchen. She further notified the landlord on 13 December 2021 that the pest controllers had not used a particular spray which she had been advised would be used to treat the infestation and that she had identified a “further infestation of slugs” on 18 December 2021. This service has not seen evidence the landlord responded to these reports. This evidence of poor communication was not reasonable and meant the resident was left confused as to how the issue was being addressed, which she highlighted in her correspondence.
  5. The sole further response this service has seen from the landlord regarding the issue was within its stage 2 complaint response, sent on 22 December 2021 in which it noted her comments regarding “slugs…have been satisfactorily addressed in the stage one response”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was not appropriate or reasonable for the landlord to state her concerns had been addressed “satisfactorily” when the resident had contacted it on at least 3 occasions to report the issue was not resolved. This final response would likely have caused the resident frustration and left her feeling that her complaints were not being taken seriously. The landlord missed an opportunity to address her concerns that the treatment which had apparently been agreed was reportedly not carried out, that she was unable to use her kitchen, and that she had incurred expenses paying for takeaways and a further pest control appointment. From the information provided to this service, it remains unclear what, if any, steps the landlord took to resolve the issue once it had received further reports from the resident in December 2021 and it is unclear when, or if, a resolution was found.
  6. The Ombudsman considers that cumulatively, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the boiler repair and the resident’s reports of a slug infestation. Orders have been made for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident to provide appropriate redress and for it to write to this service to clarify its current position regarding the reported infestation and outline any further actions taken.

The landlord carrying out unannounced visits to the resident’s property

  1. In her complaint the resident cited an unannounced visit by the landlord’s surveyor and a contractor which had taken place the previous day. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that this had been the case and explained that, as the operatives had attended a neighbouring property, they had wanted to “take the opportunity” to try and resolve a reportedly unresolved issue at the resident’s property while they were in the area. In its stage 1 response it apologized for any inconvenience that had been caused and it reiterated this apology in its stage 2 response. Its latter response noted the resident’s request that repair operatives only attend her property if an appointment had been arranged, but that on this occasion it had attempted to visit without one to try and resolve a repair “as effectively and efficiently as possible, for everyone involved”. It also clarified that this would “not happen again in future”.
  2. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s position was reasonable and clearly communicated and its offer of an apology was reasonable in the circumstances. It noted the resident’s wishes and that it had gone outside its usual procedures when trying to visit unannounced, but it was reasonable that the landlord’s operatives asked if they could also attend the resident’s property while they were in the area. Although the resident’s complaint reported they had tried to “gain access”, giving the impression of an attempted forced entry, the available evidence indicates the operatives simply asked if they could attend and the resident refused, as was her right. While the resident’s frustration is acknowledged, in the circumstances the landlord’s apology and assurance that it would not try to attend unannounced again was reasonable redress. 
  3. Regarding other reported unannounced visits, the landlord advised that its contractor reported not having attended the resident’s property in July 2020 and had attended a communal area in February 2021. In the absence of any further information, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord.
  4. Regarding a visit carried out in September 2020, the landlord initially advised it was “unfamiliar” with a company the resident stated had attended unannounced and asked for further information. Internal correspondence seen during its complaint investigation, shows the landlord made appropriate enquiries to establish who had attended at this time and provided a further explanation in its stage 2 complaint response. It advised a company acting on its behalf had undertaken a stock condition survey and letters had been written to all residents advising visits would be carried out between August and December 2020. This was a reasonable explanation, although while records indicate the landlord a template letter within its final complaint response, this service has not seen evidence that confirms the resident was actually written to. While this would have been helpful and again points to concerning gaps within the landlord’s records, its explanation regarding the visits was reasonable.
  5. The landlord declined to comment further on other reported visits in April and September 2021 as it stated these related to the disrepair claim. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s caution in this regard was understandable, and its position was reasonable. Overall, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord regarding the reported unannounced visits and how it handled the resident’s concerns.

The landlord’s communication and complaint handling

  1. It is acknowledged that there have been a number of issues the resident has raised with the landlord and records indicate she had submitted a number of complaints. From the information seen by this service, the landlord has at times responded promptly and attempted to engage with the resident with regard to arranging appointments or providing information. It is also acknowledged that not all repair reports or complaints were submitted directly to the relevant teams, and it was reasonable that the landlord’s final complaint response advised the resident that delays could occur, or correspondence could be missed, if they were not directed to the appropriate departments. 
  2. However, in some instances, there is also evidence the landlord did not respond promptly to the resident, if at all. For instance, regarding the reported slug infestation, as noted above the resident emailed the landlord on 3 occasions in December 2021 to raise further concerns and there is no evidence these were replied to or actioned. This is not appropriate and again highlights the landlord’s lack of a comprehensive set of records and the pitfalls of solely relying on email correspondence to evidence actions undertaken. Ideally, email contact should be logged on a Central Record Management system (CRM) which staff across different departments can access.
  3. It is noted the resident had requested the landlord only contact her via email and part of her complaint regarded an occasion when it contacted her by phone. From the evidence available, the landlord contacted the resident to clarify an appointment as its operatives were at the property but unable to gain access. While the resident’s preference is acknowledged, it was not unreasonable that it would contact her in such circumstances. The landlord acted appropriately by confirming in its complaint responses that it had noted her request and would go as far as removing her number from its systems, while advising that this may cause delays in the future as emails cannot always be responded to immediately, by either party. The Ombudsman has also listened to the recording of the call in question and has not identified any service failure by the landlord in this regard.
  4. Having contacted this service for advice, the resident submitted a complaint on 28 October 2021 which drew together all her outstanding concerns. Once received, the landlord responded appropriately, addressing each point in turn. However, the response was issued 9 days outside of the 10 working day target set out in its complaint procedure. While this is not a significant delay, the landlord’s response did not appear to acknowledge this or offer an explanation. It also did not appear to consider whether any form of redress would be appropriate, such as an apology or small amount of compensation.
  5. While this service has not seen the resident’s actual complaint escalation request, the landlord’s final response indicates this was received on 24 November 2021, the date its stage 1 response was issues. However, its final response not issued until 22 December 2021, again outside of the 10 working day target set out in its procedures. Although it acknowledged the resident’s “patience” while the complaint investigation was completed, it again did not apologise for the delay or offer any explanation and this service has not seen evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident in the meantime to update her regarding any delay. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not appropriate and amounted to service failure.
  6. As noted above, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was also inappropriate that the landlord’s final complaint response failed to provide further details regarding several issues as it felt they had already been responded to. This was despite the fact the resident had clearly contacted it on several occasions prior to its final response to advise that the slug issue in particular remained unresolved. It was not reasonable for the landlord to reiterate its position when the circumstances of the case – notably the attendance of the pest control operatives and the resident’s concerns regarding the treatment carried out – had moved on. As already commented on, the landlord’s final response would have caused the resident frustration and missed the opportunity to further investigate the issue and see whether it could do anything to put things right, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Ultimately, it did not treat the resident fairly and this was a further service failure.
  7. Overall, taking into account the fact that both complaint responses were issued outside of its target timeframe, without this fact being acknowledged, and the landlord’s unreasonable handling of some concerns within its final response, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration and an order for compensation has been made at the end of this report.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s repair requests including issues relating to a front downpipe, a boiler out pipe, asbestos and a slug infestation.
    2. No maladministration by the landlord regarding unannounced visits to the resident’s property.
    3. Maladministration by the landlord regarding its communication and complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair requests including issues relating to damp, a back downpipe, scaffolding and cellar steps are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s poor repair records mean it is unable to appropriately evidence all the steps it took to log and action repair requests submitted by the resident and whether it responded reasonably to each one. After it used its discretion to take responsibility for the reported slug infestation, it did not appear to respond to the resident when she advised the issue remained unresolved and there is no evidence it carried out any further treatment or clarified whether the agreed treatment had initially taken place. It also did not respond as promptly as it should have done after it was definitively made aware of the issue within the resident’s complaint. There was also an unacknowledged delay in responding to reported issues with the resident’s boiler and its poor repair.
  2. The landlord’s explanation as to why it had attended the resident’s property without an appointment in October 2021 was reasonable and its offer of an apology for any inconvenience caused was proportionate. Overall, its responses regarding other instances were also reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord did not always respond to communication from the resident in a prompt manner and in some cases, there is no evidence it responded at all. Both of its complaint responses were issues outside of its stated target, but this was not acknowledged in either case. Its final complaint response unfairly declined to further investigate some of the resident’s outstanding concerns despite evidence showing she had contacted it to advise they had not been resolved prior to the conclusion of its complaint investigation. Test

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report pay the resident £800 compensation, consisting of:
    1. £400 regarding its handling of the reported slug infestation.
    2. £100 regarding its handling of the boiler repair.
    3. £100 regarding its poor communication.
    4. £200 regarding its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord is also ordered to write to this service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to clarify the steps it took to address the reported slug infestation following the completion of its complaint procedure.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord provide the resident with a copy of the inspection report from June 2019 which determined there was no asbestos contained within her property.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord carry out an inspection of the black mould behind the kitchen cabinets and remedy as soon as possible providing a written response to the resident.