Peabody Trust (202201267)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201267

Peabody Trust

26 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. repair to the boiler and central heating system.
2. associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 3 March 2014. The property is a 4-bedroom basement property. The resident lives with her husband and 4 children. The resident and her children have medical conditions which mean that they need readily available hot water for bathing and treatment purposes. The landlord said it had no record of any vulnerabilities for the resident or the household members.
The resident said she had experienced problems with her boiler since she moved into the property. On 6 December 2021 the resident reported that she was struggling to get her boiler to start. On 24 January 2022 she complained that the landlord had attended on 8 December 2021 and told her it would call her when the parts required arrived. The landlord had arranged appointments for 21 January 2022 and 24 January 2022 but no one had attended.
On 25 April 2022 the landlord sent its stage 1 response in which it said:
1. The resident had reported the faulty boiler in January 2022. The landlord had made an appointment for 4 February 2022. The resident had cancelled the appointment stating the boiler had been working fine for the previous 3 days.
2. The landlord had contacted the resident by phone and email to find out if the issue was still outstanding, which was unsuccessful. On 14 April 2022 the resident informed the landlord the boiler was not working again. The landlord’s contractor attended on 21 April 2022 and had ordered the necessary parts.
3. On 21 April 2022 the resident reported a banging noise coming from the pipes. The landlord had arranged an appointment for 5 May 2022. The landlord would move this forward if any cancellations became available.
4. The landlord apologised for the stress the issues had caused the resident and thanked her for her time and patience.
5. The landlord offered compensation of £400, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £150 for the delayed repair to the boiler
  2. £150 for the inconvenience caused
  3. £100 for the delay in its complaint response
On 11 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said:
1. The landlord had failed to address the historic issues regarding the boiler in its stage 1 complaint response.
2. It had not addressed the high fuel bills the resident had received as a result of the central heating staying on throughout the day and night.
3. It had not completed a lasting repair to the boiler.
4. The landlord had previously told her it would replace the boiler if it broke again.
5. She would like the landlord to compensate her for personal belongings which had been damaged due to water leaking from the boiler.
6. She had tried to speak to the complaint handler on 5 May 2022 regarding the complaint but had not received a call back. She was concerned the timeframe for responding to the complaint had elapsed.
7. She had emailed the landlord on 10 February 2022 and 14 April 2022, but these had not been sent and had saved in her draft folder. She referred to sending other emails to the landlord which had contained details of her dissatisfaction.
On 7 July 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response, in which it said:
1. It had recommended the resident’s record was updated immediately.
2. It agreed that the reports of the faulty boiler in December 2021 and prior were relevant to the overall assessment of the service received.
3. It was unfortunate that the resident and her husband had missed the flight to Paris. The engineer had indicated a timeframe for delivery of the part but had not given a specific appointment for the installation. Considering the resident’s experience with repairs, the landlord empathised with the resident’s decision to cancel the trip.
4. It would raise a job immediately to investigate the suspected electrical fault and rectify it.
5. It would ask its allocation team to contact the resident to commence the process of applying for a transfer.
6. It had not seen evidence that the zoned heating was a contributing factor to increased energy costs over and above the price cap increase in October 2021.
7. Due to the number of repairs and replacement parts it had actioned for the boiler and its age, the landlord recommended the boiler be replaced.
8. The landlord apologised for failing to add proper vulnerability markers to the resident’s account, for its failure to respond and act in a timely manner and rectify issues with the boiler. Also that it had not effectively managed the resident’s expectations around reimbursement in accordance with the resident’s requests. It offered a total of £817.87 compensation in recognition of the failures identified, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £400 at stage 1
  2. £317.87 for reimbursement of the costs incurred due to the missed trip
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused
On 1 August 2022 following contact from the resident, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £1,572.87, which it broke down as follows:
1. £817.87 at stage 2
2. £55 for the polymerase chain reaction test (PCR)
3. £500 towards the resident’s energy bills
4. £200 for damage to personal items
In communication with the Ombudsman the resident said the issue with the central heating coming on, even when the thermostat was off, was still occurring, despite the landlord changing the boiler in August 2022. She said she had to turn her boiler off completely to stop this from happening, which meant she had to physically turn the boiler back on when she needed hot water. She also said the landlord had told her it had amended her account to record her medical conditions. But each time she contacted the landlord’s contractor, she still had to explain these, which she found humiliating because she had to share very personal details about her medical conditions. As an outcome she would like the landlord to:
1. apologise to her for its failures
2. compensate her for the increased energy bills
3. complete a lasting repair to stop the heating from coming on unexpectedly
4. ensure the landlord had recorded hers and the household’s vulnerabilities accurately and made them accessible to its contractors

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman is aware that the resident complained to the landlord about similar issues in December 2019. However, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint dated 24 January 2022, which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 5 July 2022. This is because, the resident’s complaint from December 2019 had not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process and was not brought to the Ombudsman’s attention within a reasonable time.
The resident has also said that the issues concerning the central heating staying on has continued despite the landlord changing the boiler. The Ombudsman cannot consider issues which have arisen after the landlord’s stage 2 response. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service. The resident can address these issues directly with the landlord.
The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the repair to her boiler and central heating system worsened the health and well-being of herself and her children. While the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, we cannot make firm conclusions on the cause of the resident’s health conditions, determine liability for them, or award damages for these. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way a court or insurer might. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health, or her children’s health, was affected by any action or inaction by the landlord.
While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the family experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Repair to the boiler and central heating system

The landlord’s repair policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours and will make them safe within 24 hours. It will then finalise the repair within its routine repair targets. It says it aims to deliver routine repairs at the next available appointment and within an average of 10 working days. However, it states some repairs may take longer due to their complexity and specialist nature.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. The landlord’s record keeping in this case has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.
Between 6 December 2021 and 20 April 2022, the landlord recorded the following repairs and notes on the resident’s repair log relating to the boiler and central heating system. These were all recorded under different job references and therefore it is reasonable to assume that they were separate repairs:
1. 6 December 2021 – boiler struggling to start
2. 18 January 2022 – drop off fan heaters – follow on works booked for 24 January 2022
3. 14 February 2022 – heating and hot water keeps cutting out, ongoing issue
4. 11 April 2022 – gas boiler leaking
5. 20 April 2022 – no hot water or heating
6. 21 April 2022 – loud noise coming from pipes
Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to verify:
1. when the landlord responded to these repairs, if at all, and whether this was reasonable or consistent with its policy
2. what repairs were completed, if any
3. what steps the landlord took to satisfy itself of the adequacy of the repairs, if any, and whether these were reasonable
4. whether the resident was left with adequate heating and washing facilities during this time
On 10 June 2022, the resident informed the landlord that she had been without hot water for a total of 22 days. These were 4 days, between 11 February 2022 to 14 February 2022 and 18 days between 10 April 2022 to 28 April 2022. Although we are unable to verify this with the landlord’s records, we have no reason to disbelieve the resident for this account. There is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to mitigate the impact on the resident, such as providing additional provision to boil water. This was a failure by the landlord.
Taking everything into account, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the boiler and central heating system were reasonable or appropriate in the first instance. Based on what we know, it is reasonable to assume that the repair to the boiler from 6 December 2021 remained unresolved until at least August 2022 when the landlord replaced the boiler. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
We can see the landlord replaced the boiler in August 2022 with follow on works completed at the beginning of September 2022. In an email dated 7 November 2022 the resident confirmed to the landlord that she had not had any issues since September 2022. The landlord said that the next boiler repair reported by the resident was in December 2023. Although the Ombudsman is aware that the resident has continued to report similar issues with her boiler and central heating system, it was reasonable to assume that the replacement of the boiler in August 2022 resolved the issues at that time.
In summary there were failures by the landlord in that it:
1. delayed in completing a timely and lasting repair to the boiler and central heating system
2. failed to create and maintain adequate records of its repairs and actions taken
The Ombudsman would consider these failures to amount to maladministration.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs, and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
As an outcome the resident asked the landlord to reimburse her for the increased energy bills which she said were because of the landlord’s handling of the repair to the boiler and central heating system. The resident said that she had provided the landlord with energy bills from 2016. She also said that British Gas had carried out an assessment of her bills and found that they were significantly higher than those of homes of a similar size and household members. The landlord said it had not received copies of energy bills and that it could not consider bills from 2016 due to the historic nature of them.
The Ombudsman has also not seen evidence of the resident’s energy costs before and after the boiler replacement to establish the extent of the energy usage. In these circumstances, based on the evidence provided, this Service is not able to accurately assess the likely impact of the delays on the overall costs of energy use. Where this evidence is not available, we may say that a landlord should pay an amount in recognition of the fact that the resident has incurred costs that would not have arisen had the maladministration not occurred.
The landlord made an offer of £500 in relation to the increased energy costs. We have not seen any evidence to show that this offer was unreasonable or that a further award is appropriate.
With regards to the resident’s personal belongings. In general, we expect landlords to refer damage claims, when a resident feels personal belongings were damaged due to a landlord’s actions or inactions, to their insurer for investigation. Alternatively, landlords can conduct their own investigation to assess the reported damages. Either way, the landlord should address the resident’s concerns.
In this case, the resident reported damage to kitchen items which she said came to an approximate total cost of £360. The landlord said it had not received receipts from the resident. However, as a gesture of goodwill, it agreed to make a payment of approximately 50% of the amount of compensation the resident was seeking.
We can see the landlord reimbursed the resident with the cost of a flight to Paris and a PCR test. The landlord said this was due to the resident cancelling a trip with her husband to allow a repair visit to go ahead, which had been arranged at short notice. Due to lack of adequate records, we have not seen any evidence of when this appointment was arranged, why it was arranged at short notice or how the landlord communicated with the resident about this. Normally, where an appointment is not convenient for the resident the landlord should rearrange this for the next suitable date. However, we can see that the landlord considered the resident’s request and empathised with her decision to cancel the trip, based on her experience with the landlord completing repairs. There is no evidence to show that the landlord asked the resident to cancel this trip.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may make a good will offer to resolve a complaint. Such gestures are carefully considered on whether it is appropriate to do so. There is no guidance in the policy on what should be paid. In this case, the landlord considered the resident’s request and offered an amount it thought was reasonable in the circumstances. This was not something the Ombudsman would normally order the landlord to pay. However, because the landlord has offered to reimburse the resident for these costs as part of its complaint response, we would expect the landlord to pay this.
The landlord acted fairly by apologising for the inconvenience caused to the resident due to its failure to respond and act in a timely manner to rectify issues with the boiler and central heating system. It showed learning from outcomes in its stage 2 complaint response by explaining that it needed to improve the way in which it managed expectations and processes around the delivery times of parts and follow up appointments. In addition, it needed to have a more pragmatic approach to the assessment of the lifespan of major equipment in homes such as boilers, particularly where there are extensive repairs required in such a relatively short space of time.
The landlord showed its attempt to put things right by replacing the boiler in August 2022, arranging to investigate the suspected electrical issue and by offering the resident compensation.
It is concerning that the landlord has informed the Ombudsman that it does not hold any record of the vulnerabilities for the resident and her household, specifically their medical conditions. This is despite it giving assurances in its complaint responses that it would update its records and pass this information to its contractors. We have therefore made an order that the landlord update its systems to reflect the resident’s and the household’s medical conditions. The landlord should also ensure that this information is passed to its contractors so that the resident does not have to repeat personal information each time she reports a repair or has contact with the landlord.
The landlord offered £400 compensation for the delay in completing the repair and the distress and inconvenience caused. As outlined earlier in this report, the main issue with the central heating system was that the heating would not turn off. As such, the main impact on the resident was the increased energy bills, which the landlord has agreed to compensate the resident in the sum of £500.
Although there may have been times when the resident did not have heating, we are unable to establish when and for how long this happened. As set out above, the resident was without hot water for 22 days. The impact of this was significant due to the resident’s and her family’s medical conditions.
The issues with the boiler and central heating system remained unresolved from at least December 2021 to at least August 2022. The landlord’s offer of £400 does not, in the Ombudsman’s view, recognise the impact on the resident. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, a fairer level of compensation would be £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused over a prolonged period.
The Ombudsman’s special investigation report in March 2023 into the landlord found it responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents including record keeping, particularly around repairs. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including creating a process to ascertain where the gaps in service were and to establish a process regarding data quality. As the events of the current complaint took place before the time of our special investigation, no orders or recommendations have been made for the landlord’s handling of repairs or record keeping in addition to those made in the special investigation report.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. At stage 1, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days of being made and will provide its response within 10 working days of being acknowledged. At stage 2, the landlord will provide its response within 20 working days of the request being received.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should manage complaints. This includes an expectation that landlords will:
1. respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days
2. respond to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days
The resident submitted her initial complaint on 24 January 2022, which the landlord acknowledged the following day. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 25 April 2022, which was 65 working days later. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
Further to this, paragraph 5.4 of the Code states that, where a problem is reoccurring, the landlord should consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint. The landlord did not consider how long the resident had been reporting issues with her boiler in its stage 1 response, which was a failure.
The resident escalated her complaint on 11 May 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 July 2022, which was 40 working days later. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
The resident remained dissatisfied and said that the landlord had not considered the effect on her and her family. In its stage 2 response the landlord also referred to an email from the resident dated 10 June 2022 in which the resident had outlined her outstanding concerns. We have not seen this email and therefore are unable to comment on whether the landlord included all the outstanding items raised by the resident. However, we can see that the landlord’s stage 2 response referred to other issues which were not contained within the resident’s escalation. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
On 21 July 2022 the resident sent a response to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint, stating that it had not addressed all the outstanding issues to her satisfaction. Following this the landlord wrote to the resident with answers to her questions and included a revised offer of compensation. This was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord was trying to resolve the complaint.
In summary, there were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling in that it:
1. unreasonably delayed in providing a response at stage 1 and stage 2
2. failed to consider previous reported issues regarding the boiler in its stage 1 response
The Ombudsman would consider these failures to amount to maladministration.
The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaints at both stages prevented her from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that she could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged the delay in sending its stage 1 response and the lack of detail around the length of time the resident had been reporting issues with her boiler. It apologised and offered £100 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling. It did not acknowledge the delay at stage 2. The Ombudsman does not consider this sum reasonable given the failings identified and the delays in the landlord dealing with the resident’s complaint. We have therefore made an order that the landlord increase its compensation for complaint handling to £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.
The Ombudsman’s special investigation report in March 2023 into the landlord found it responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents including in complaint handling. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes reviewing its complaint handling processes and training to make sure it complied with the Code. As the events of the current complaint took place before the time of our special investigation, no orders or recommendations have been made for the landlord’s complaint handling in addition to those made in the special investigation report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repair to the boiler and central heating system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide the resident with a full written apology for the errors identified in this report.
2. Update the resident’s account to record the resident’s and the household vulnerabilities and ensure this information is shared with its contractors. Provide the resident and the Ombudsman with evidence that this has been done.
3. pay the resident compensation of £700 which is comprised of:
  1. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience cause by the landlord’s handling of the repair to the boiler and central heating system
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
4. pay the resident £1072.87 for reimbursement of the following costs:
  1. £317.87 for the missed flight to Paris
  2. £55 for the PCR test
  3. £500 towards the resident’s energy costs
  4. £200 towards the resident’s personal items
This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss the issues she is having with the central heating system and thereafter arrange any necessary repairs.