Peabody Trust (202108664)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108664

Peabody Trust

20 December 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:
1. The level of compensation offered to the resident.
2. The permanent move which was approved in June 2023.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a block of flats. The resident lives in the property with her daughter who has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism.
The landlord stated that the resident made a formal complaint on 15 April 2021. The complaint was in relation to the landlord’s handling of damage in her property from ongoing damp and mould. She wanted the landlord to confirm when it would complete the outstanding works.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 August 2021. It said it could see there had been issues with its contractor in managing her case. It confirmed that her case was with a specialist surveying team who would attend her property on 20 August 2021. The landlord said it was clear the standard of service provided was below what it would expect. It apologised for the frustration and inconvenience caused. It said it would ensure it completed the repairs. It said following that it would confirm its compensation offer and lessons learnt from her complaint.
The resident was temporarily decanted from her property on 28 September 2021. This was decided following a survey of the property and in consideration of the subsequent works required. The landlord also confirmed that the property posed a risk to the resident and her daughter and the resident had provided medical information to support that. The landlord said it completed the works in November 2021 and the resident returned to the property. It said a further leak was identified in June 2022 which it did not resolve until May 2023.
In this time, the resident repeatedly escalated her complaint. She said the property was still leaking and had damp and mould. She complained about the missed appointments from her landlord, the poor communication, and the lack of action taken since 2019. The resident said that both herself and her daughter were becoming more ill. She said she had provided the landlord with medical evidence from her GP. She said she was still sleeping in her living room as the bedrooms were covered in mould. She said she had no home life, as she had no home. The resident said she was told she could have a permanent decant and she wanted to know when that would take place.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 June 2024. It confirmed that the resident had experienced damp and mould in her home since 2019. It said a leak was the source of the damp and mould and it was eventually repaired in November 2022. The landlord confirmed that a second leak was discovered which was resolved in May 2023. However, the resident continued to experience a leak, damp, and mould in her property. It said the following:
1. The resident was placed on the priority move list in June 2023. As of February 2024, the team which would normally match residents on the priority move list was dissolved and therefore there had been no active searches to match the resident with a property. It said it had changed her banding to A2, enhancing her priority. It said the lettings manager would be making bids on her behalf until a new system is in place for automated bidding. It offered the resident the option to access the system to make her own bids. It apologised for not informing her of the changes. It said the manager would contact her directly to discuss her priority move.
2. It outlined all the service failings it had found and a timeline of events. This included significant delays from its repairs service, poor communication from staff and contractors and no support offered, despite being aware of the vulnerabilities in the household.
3. It offered its insurance details should the resident wish to pursue a liability claim for personal injury or effects on her health. It also offered its insurance details in relation to the resident’s report that contractors had stolen goods from her home.
4. The landlord acknowledged the delays in its complaint responses. It noted that the resident had requested for her complaint to be escalated several times with little response. It confirmed that its communication regarding the complaint was poor and infrequent. It apologised for its complaint handling and acknowledged the inconvenience and frustration caused.
5. It outlined the learning from the case and the changes it was making to ensure similar issues did not arise in future. It offered a total of £4,582.75 in compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She felt the compensation should start from her first complaint in March 2020. She said that both the bedrooms and bathroom were unusable and therefore the room loss allowance compensated to her should be at least 50% of her rent. The resident said she is still waiting for a permanent move. She said the landlord failed in its handling of the move as its information on the system was incorrect which delayed her being offered any properties. She said she wanted the landlord to help her permanently move from the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has referred to her household’s health and how the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to any likely distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of the situation.
The resident has reported that the situation had been ongoing since 2019. In line with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will investigate 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint recorded in April 2021 up until the landlord’s stage 2 response.

The level of compensation offered to the resident

It is not disputed that there were serious failures by the landlord in its handling of the leaks, damp, and mould reported by the resident. The landlord has acknowledged this in its complaint responses, and the complaint brought to the Ombudsman by the resident is in relation to the level of compensation offered.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will pay compensation when a person has experienced a delay or it has failed to carry out a service within its published guidelines. It states that it will not pay compensation for personal injury claims. It will also not pay compensation where work is required at a property and full communication of an action plan has been provided and it has kept to the plan.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that for unusable rooms, a resident can receive a percentage of weekly rent as compensation. It states 20% should be paid for bedrooms and 25% for bathrooms. It says that the maximum that can be claimed is 50% of the weekly rent. The policy states that if only partial loss of the room is experienced, the percentage should reflect this. It states that it will also consider if a resident has not had full enjoyment of the home and will consider a compensatory award in line with the above calculations.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord broke down its compensation offer as follows:
1. £1,700 for time, trouble, and inconvenience. It noted that this exceeded the maximum amount offered in its compensation policy, which was £400.
2. £300 discretionary compensation towards a new washing machine and other white goods.
3. £500 for complaint handling. It noted that this exceeded the maximum award amount offered in its compensation policy, which was £100.
4. £1,192.40 which was 10% of the resident’s rent paid from April 2021 to October 2022. It confirmed this was for loss of enjoyment of the property.
5. £890.35 which was 10% of the resident’s rent paid from June 2022 to June 2023. This was again for loss of enjoyment of the property.
The stage 2 response from the landlord also noted that the resident had outlined the impact on her own and her daughter’s health. As per its policy, it appropriately explained why it could not compensate for health-related issues but provided its insurance details should she wish to submit a claim. These details were also provided for the resident’s report that contractors had stolen goods from her home.
It was reasonable for the landlord to exceed its policy when offering compensation for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience. This is due to the prolonged time that the situation had been ongoing for the resident. It correctly stated that this likely had a significant impact on the resident and the landlord-tenant relationship. It acknowledged that its communication was poor and no support was offered despite being aware of the impact and vulnerabilities in the household. Therefore, the offer of redress to put things right would need to be substantial.
Similarly, the complaint handling failures were not appropriate and the landlord failed to follow its policy and best practice. The impact on the resident was likely significant due to the time and trouble expended in having to repeatedly contact the landlord, with little response. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to consider exceeding its maximum amount in this instance as a step to putting things right for the resident and to learn from the outcomes.
The Ombudsman therefore finds the offers of £1,700 and £500 to be fair and proportionate to the failings. The amounts are in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for where the landlord repeatedly failed to provide the same service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. It was also reasonable for the landlord to offer discretionary compensation towards the washing machine and white goods, in the circumstances.
As stated, the resident disputed the amount of compensation offered for the loss of enjoyment of her property. The reasons for this were that she said both of the bedrooms and the bathroom in the property were uninhabitable and the landlord’s compensation policy for loss of rooms should be correctly applied to reflect that. The resident also believed that the amount should be calculated from 2020 until 4 weeks after she was offered a permanent move. She believed that was fair as she said no action had been carried out.
In considering whether the compensation offered for the loss of enjoyment of the property was reasonable, the Ombudsman must first consider whether any rooms were unusable and if so, whether the landlord correctly applied its policy to calculate the amount. It should be noted that in investigating the complaint, the Ombudsman must rely on the contemporaneous evidence provided to it.
In this case, the records provided do not precede April 2021 and therefore it is difficult to understand what was raised prior to that and what action the landlord took as a result. As such, the landlord’s record keeping will be considered later in this report. Ultimately, the landlord has not disputed that the situation was ongoing for the resident since at least 2020. The landlord said a damp specialist attended in 2020 but could not find a leak at the time.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that in 2021 the damp had spread throughout the resident’s property and that the bathroom and both bedrooms were unusable. It said the resident raised a complaint on 15 April 2021. It does not appear any action was taken to remedy the issue until the resident and her daughter were decanted on 28 September 2021. It confirmed the resident needed to be moved as the property was uninhabitable.
Given the landlord confirmed that that the rooms were unusable, it would have been appropriate for it to have applied its compensation policy for loss of rooms to this period, rather than loss of enjoyment. Given that the percentages for the rooms altogether would have exceeded 50%, the landlord should have offered the maximum of 50% of the rent for that time.
While the resident was decanted until November 2021, the landlord acknowledged the mismanagement of the decant and the delays involved with extending her stay. The resident outlined the impact this had on her and her daughter, and it was reasonable for the landlord to have considered 10% of her rent for loss of enjoyment of the property in that time.
The landlord acknowledged that since returning to her property in November 2021, the resident continued to experience leaks, damp, and mould in the property. It acknowledged that the resident experienced poor communication, poor repair management, and a general lack of urgency. It awarded 10% of the residents rent in compensation from April 2021 to October 2022 when the repair issue was escalated. It also awarded 10% of the resident’s rent from June 2022 to June 2023 when it said a further leak was identified and the lack of enjoyment of her home was escalated again.
In the landlord’s evidence provided to the Ombudsman, the landlord stated that it offered 10% of the resident’s overall rent as all rooms were affected by the repair issues. It confirmed that the rooms had not been deemed uninhabitable by a surveyor or a professional. Other internal correspondence provided by the landlord stated, “We originally had over £8K but I have reviewed and we have reduced to the £4579.75”. No further information has been provided into how the original amount was reached. In considering whether the amount offered was reasonable, the Ombudsman has considered when the resident reported that rooms were not habitable and whether the landlord took steps to satisfy itself that they were.
The records show the following occasions when the resident reported rooms were not habitable:
1. On 11 November 2022, the landlord noted that the resident had called in “floods of tears” to say no action had been taken, her bedroom was full of mould, she was gagging on the fumes and having to sleep in the living room. It said she could not use the shower as it was leaking and she felt miserable and depressed. The email states that the complaint had been open for over 500 days and that the resident “had a point”.
2. On 1 February 2023, the landlord confirmed it had spoken to the resident and she said she was in the same position she was when she was decanted. It said she was not able to use her bedroom due to damp and mould and sleeping on the sofa. The email stated that the complaint had been open for 593 days and was embarrassing. The email also states, “there does not seem to be any sense of urgency.”
3. On 27 February 2023, the resident said, “I am still sleeping/living on the sofa in my front room as the bedrooms covered from floor to ceiling in mould”.
It is evident from the above reports that the resident felt she was unable to use her bedroom and had been sleeping in the living room from at least 11 November 2022. The landlord has not provided any evidence to suggest it sufficiently assessed the resident’s bedroom and whether it was fit for human habitation. As such, the Ombudsman considers it would be fair to compensate the resident for 20% of her rent from 11 November 2022 to June 2023, in line with the landlord’s policy.
The Ombudsman does not doubt that the resident’s daughter’s bedroom was impacted or that she could not use the shower due to the impact of the leaks. However, the Ombudsman cannot determine that it was sufficiently reported that those rooms were not useable at the time. Therefore, the 10% for loss of enjoyment of the property was reasonable in considering the overall impact.
The landlord stated that it could not award further compensation following June 2023 as the resident had maintained that she did not want the landlord to return to complete the remedial works. The priority move application dated 22 June 2023 stated that the resident no longer wanted the work to be done because of previous failures and the effect on her mental health. The notes on the repair records from June 2023 until June 2024 stated, “notes advise no works carried out”. There are no other records provided from June 2023 until January 2024.
The landlord’s policy states that it will not pay compensation where work is required at a property and full communication of an action plan has been provided and it has kept to the plan. While the landlord recorded that the resident no longer wanted the work to be carried out, the Ombudsman has not been provided with copies of the correspondence at the time. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether an action plan was provided to the resident and what was discussed in relation to any proposed works.
From January 2024 onwards, there is evidence of the resident chasing a response from the landlord in relation to a response to her complaint and her approved decant. As the resident was not satisfactorily responded to or provided with the landlord’s position on the repairs until the stage 2 response, the Ombudsman finds it would be reasonable to compensate the resident for her loss of enjoyment of the property.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £6,747.85 in compensation, which is broken down as follows:
1. £3,773.85 it offered at the stage 2 response. This is minus the 10% offered for loss of enjoyment at any of the times below.
2. £1,637 which is based on approximately 50% of the resident’s rent from April 2021 to the decant in September 2021.
3. £963 which is based on approximately 20% of the resident’s rent from November 2022 to June 2023.
4. £374 which is based on 10% of the resident’s rent from January 2024 to June 2024.
The Ombudsman would have found maladministration, if not for the steps taken by the landlord to put things right in the stage 2 response and show learning from its outcomes. However, the offer of redress was not sufficient or calculated in line with its policy, and therefore, there was service failure in the level of compensation offered to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the permanent move which was approved in June 2023

The landlord’s transfer policy states that permanent and temporary decants will be considered on assessment and recommendation by a building surveyor. It states that they will determines if the property is unsuitable for the tenant to remain due to the works required.
The policy states that for eligible applicants who are in the A1 – A3 bands they will be reviewed every 3 months due to the urgency of their move. It also states that it will consider any reciprocal arrangement with other registered providers and partner local authorities where the arrangement will assist its tenants in securing more suitable alternative accommodation.
It is not disputed that the landlord approved a priority move for the resident in June 2023. However, the resident has stated that she was not initially informed that it had been approved and when she chased it, it admitted that it had not done anything to progress her application. She said an account was set up for her on the bidding system but her criteria was incorrect, for example, it said she needed a 1–bedroom property instead of a 2-bedroom. At the time of writing this report, the resident has not yet been offered a suitable property, and she was not happy with the time taken and having to reside in her current property.
The Ombudsman has had sight of the priority move form which was approved on 22 June 2023. The form outlines that the resident would require 2 bedrooms. It outlined the current situation for the household which referred to the widespread damp and mould in the property and the impact on the household. While there is evidence of the landlord discussing the permanent move internally, no evidence has been provided of informing the resident, which was a failing. As stated by the resident, this caused her unnecessary time and trouble in chasing the landlord for an update.
It is unclear from the records when the resident was informed that she had been approved for a priority move and what guidance she had been provided in relation to it. On 12 January 2024, the resident chased the landlord to say she had not had any update in relation to her approved move and that she was supposed to have received a call that week, and no-one had communicated to her. It does not appear that the resident was responded to which was not appropriate.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord informed the resident that up until February 2024 there was a team who would normally match residents but it had since been dissolved. It is not clear why the resident was not contacted by that team up until then or provided any updates on her application. As per its policy, the resident’s case should have been reviewed every 3 months and there is no evidence that it was, which was a further failing.
The stage 2 response confirmed that the resident’s priority had been enhanced from A3 to A2 and an allocations manager would be in touch to discuss her move. It said the allocations manager would bid on her behalf until the new system was in place. It said the resident could view the properties and make bids herself which could be arranged if she wished to do so. It apologised for her not being informed of the recent changes.
The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s permanent move was not appropriate, nor was it in line with its policy. When communicating with residents it is important that landlord’s are clear and manage expectations. The resident should have been informed of the approval as soon as it was agreed. It should have set out the process regarding bidding for properties, and if possible, a broad timeline with regards to the permanent move. If a timeline could not be provided, it should have confirmed that it would review the resident’s case every 3 months and consider what other actions may assist, in line with its policy.
The Ombudsman recognises that it can take time for a suitable property to be offered, this can be due to having a limited stock of properties and high demand. However, there were unnecessary delays in this case and it remains unclear how active the landlord was in finding a suitable property. It would have been reasonable at the point of the stage 2 response and upon realisation of its failures in this case for the landlord to have considered a reciprocal arrangement. This would have been in line with its policy and shown a willingness to want to expedite the resident’s case given the time which had passed so far. It is disappointing that it did not do so.
It is clear in this case that the landlord’s communication regarding the permanent move fell short of the standard expected. It did not clearly advise the resident when the move was approved nor did it explain the technicalities of the process. It should have updated the resident on a more regular basis regarding any progress with her application and when the processes had changed. It is not clear why the criteria was not correct as it was outlined correctly on the form. However, if the landlord had engaged the resident sooner, this may have lessened the time the application was on the system with the incorrect information.
The landlord did go some way to help alleviate the situation by increasing the resident’s banding to A2 and in offering further support in bidding for properties. However, it failed to consider a reciprocal agreement with the local authority which may have assisted her in finding a suitable property sooner. Overall, the landlord’s lack of communication caused delays in progressing her priority move offer and likely caused further unnecessary stress to the resident.
Taking all of the above into account, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the permanent move which was approved in June 2023. The resident has stated that it remains unclear about the steps required to progress her application. Orders will be made with the intention of putting things right for the resident.
In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed that its award for time, trouble, and inconvenience included its failure to inform the resident of the changes taking place internally. It also included the lack of progress made between February 2024 and June 2024. The Ombudsman finds the total amount offered was proportionate and therefore no further compensation will be awarded.

The landlord’s record keeping

From the evidence provided there were failures in the landlord’s record keeping which impacted the landlord’s handling of the complaint. As already stated, it was difficult to determine from the records when communications had taken place and what steps the landlord had made. It is also concerning that no records have been provided prior to April 2021.
It is reasonable to expect that the landlord has systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, visits, inspections, and investigations. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould makes it clear that landlords should ensure their record keeping is sufficiently accurate and robust. This would not only have benefitted the Ombudsman’s investigation, but it would also have ensured the landlord had oversight of the issue and the repairs required in the property. The internal correspondence in this case shows that the landlord was unclear about what steps had been taken and how to respond to the resident, which was troubling.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. There were gaps in the landlord’s records which hindered its ability to demonstrate that it was confident in its investigations. This also likely contributed to the landlord failing to effectively communicate and address the issues with the resident over a prolonged period of time.
In 2024, the Ombudsman ordered an independent review into the landlord’s repairs and decants which resulted in 31 recommendations for it to improve its services. Such orders can be used where the Ombudsman is seeking significant improvement by the landlord. While it is not clear whether the resident’s case was included in the review at the time, the findings were similar to the failures shown in this case. The landlord has confirmed it is committed to the recommendations as part of its plans for overall improvement and change. As such, no further orders will be made in relation to the failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the level of compensation offered to the resident.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the permanent move which was approved in June 2023.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

A senior member of the landlord staff must apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
The landlord must confirm what the current status is for the resident’s permanent move. If it has not already done so, it must outline the process for A2 priority moves, how the resident can access the system herself, and what steps it will take to oversee the move until the resident is offered a suitable property. It must also confirm its position on contacting other registered providers and partner local authorities for a reciprocal arrangement. If this is possible, it must provide an action plan with defined timescales for doing so.
The landlord must pay a total of £6,747.85 to the resident. This includes the compensation of £4,582.75 it previously offered.
The landlord is to provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.