Peabody Trust (202205908)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205908

Peabody Trust

14 February 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. Requests for a refurbished bathroom.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”. When making a formal complaint contemporaneously, it makes it possible for a thorough investigation of the issues and increases the chances of matters being resolved satisfactorily and at the earliest opportunity. Making a formal complaint at the time, means that any staff concerned are available to comment, evidence is more likely to be available and that alleged perpetrators have a chance to respond to the allegation/s and where appropriate, to change their behaviour to put things right.
The Ombudsman does not investigate the landlord’s handling of historic matters for these reasons.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman determines the complaint in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB and noise nuisance from a neighbouring property outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because in her complaint regarding the issue mentioned above, the resident specifically refers to incidents that occurred at least 2 years prior to submitting a complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident occupies a 2 bedroom second floor flat and has held an assured tenancy, with a housing association landlord, at the property since 26 September 2000. The resident stated that the property was built the year before she moved in.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 23 June 2022 with 2 complaints about the landlord. The landlord dealt with each of the complaints separately and issued stage 1 and stage 2 responses for each of the complaints. Given that the responses to the stage 2 complaints were provided within 2 months of each other, in the interest of streamlining and to lessen complexity for both parties, both complaints will be dealt with in this report.

Summary of events

Evidence provided showed that the resident contacted the landlord on at least 3 occasions in 2019 for an update on the bathroom refurbishment and that the landlord advised that prior to a refurbishment taking place the resident would receive a letter from a surveyor. It added that there was no guaranteed date for a refurbishment and offered to send the enquiry to the investment team, which the resident refused.
The resident made further contact with the landlord in respect of the bathroom refurbishment in August 2020, in response she was advised that while an internal inspection of the property was due, because of the Covid 19 pandemic for safety reasons internal survey appointments were not being carried out but that her property had been added to a list for a survey as soon as the situation allowed.
Call notes provided by the landlord also showed that on 10 May 2021 the resident contacted the landlord again about the bathroom refurbishment. She stated that prior to the Pandemic the landlord replaced kitchens and bathrooms at other properties within the block of flats. She added that her bath was scratched, and the plug holes were black and that it was her opinion that it needed replacing. She further explained that a landlord officer had visited approximately 2 years earlier and stated that he would write a report asking for the bathroom to be replaced. The resident was disappointed that her bathroom had not been replaced and asked for the landlord to call her. Records showed that the landlord acknowledged the call and told the resident that her query had been sent to the investment team who dealt with such works, and that she should expect a response within 10 working days. The call notes also showed that the landlord noted that it did not have up to date data for a survey and that it would arrange an internal survey once it was taking appointments again. According to the landlord note, the landlord attempted to contact the resident on both her mobile and landline number but there was no response.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 23 June 2022 to explain that 5 years earlier a person independent of the landlord visited her property to inspect the kitchen and bathroom to ascertain if it needed replacing. She added that other tenants who also lived on the second floor in the block had their kitchens and/or bathroom replaced. The resident explained that she regularly called the landlord for an update but was told to ‘wait for a letter’.
The resident added that after some time a landlord employee, which she believed was a surveyor, visited her property and said that he would recommend a refurbishment for the bathroom due to its age and because the bath was scratched, and the plug holes were completely black.
The resident explained she contacted the landlord about the visit, but the landlord is unable to provide the notes from the visit.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 24 June 2022 in relation to the resident’s complaint. In response, the landlord contacted the resident 4 days later asking her to provide further information in relation to the complaint.
The resident replied the same day explaining that she had contacted the landlord on several occasions asking for a representative to inspect the bathroom, but that her requests had been ignored. She stated that a solicitor had sent photos of the bathroom to the landlord several months earlier.
In response the landlord explained that if the solicitor was no longer representing the resident, it would raise a stage 1 complaint.
On 1 July 2022 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had raised a stage 1 complaint, and that the resident should expect a response by 15 July 2022.
The landlord responded to the complaint about the bathroom refurbishment on 25 July 2022. It explained that it understood her complaint to be that she had not received a letter regarding the replacement of her bathroom and that as a resolution she wanted the bathroom replaced.
In its response the landlord explained that it had reviewed repair and contact records. It apologised that she was unhappy that she had not received any correspondence in relation to a possible bathroom replacement and acknowledged that she was disappointed that her bathroom had not been replaced whilst her neighbours’ had.
The landlord explained that its scheduled works were not carried out on a ‘one size fits all’ basis and the fact that works had been carried out on other properties in the area did not mean that all properties would have the same works completed at the same time.
In addition, it explained that a surveyor had inspected the bathroom in 2017 and recommended that the bathroom would not need to be replaced within 10 years. The landlord explained that it would contact the resident closer to the time that works were due and that it would most likely complete another survey in the coming years.
The landlord added that following the complaint it had conducted further staff training on record-keeping and communication and it had also reminded staff of the importance of providing clear, accurate and up to date records. It said that by way of compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident it would offer £25.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalated complaint on 9 August 2022 and advise the resident to expect a response by 31 August 2022.
On 31 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord reiterating her stage 1 complaint. On the same day the landlord advised that the stage 2 response would be delayed until 14 September 2022.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of the complaints process on 14 September 2022. It acknowledged that the resident was disappointed that it had not arranged to replace her bathroom.
The landlord explained that it wanted to find a resolution and to that end had instructed a responsive repairs surveyor to inspect the bathroom and advise what, if any, repairs were needed. It stated that it would notify the resident of the outcome and follow through and monitor the surveyor’s recommendations. It explained that this was separate from a stock condition survey, which had been conducted at the property previously and which was primarily used to check its stock and plan for future investments.
The landlord stated that while it was unable to investigate several years past, it accepted that the resident had experienced poor customer service and to that end had reminded the investment team of the importance of good record keeping.
As a resolution to the complaint the landlord offered compensation of £75, which it explained was:
1. £25 for the delayed complaint response.
2. £50 for the time, trouble and inconvenience which also included the poor expectation management and lack of corresponding notes.

Post internal complaints process.

The landlord arranged for a survey of the bathroom to take place, and in November 2022 the landlord agreed that that it would renew the bathroom.
Evidence showed that there was a delay completing the refurbishment because of a leak from the property above and an issue with access to that property.
On 3 May 2023 that landlord emailed the resident with an update on the bathroom refurbishment. In addition, it apologised for its poor communication since its stage 2 response and to that end made an additional offer of redress to compensate for the poor communication from the stage 2 response until that point.
It further explained that it was unable to investigate matters as far back as 10 years which is why it was focused on finding a resolution. Consequently, it made an increased offer of compensation, which took into account its new compensation policy. It offered the resident a total of £475, as set out below. The landlord has only provided an explanation for £450 of the compensation payment. The landlord has not stated what the additional £25 is for.
1. £250 for complaint handling.
2. £200 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that the landlord completed the bathroom refurbishment in August 2023.
The landlord advised the Ombudsman that it had made recommendations to its investment team regarding the appropriate course of action if, on attendance at a property, they note that repairs are needed.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s policies

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy categorises different types of repairs depending on their nature. It explains that planned maintenance is an activity that has been planned, normally as part of an annual programme to maintain the safety or structure of a building and or to replace a major component such as a bathroom, kitchen, or roof. It states that a responsive repair is a maintenance activity where the landlord restores something damaged, faulty, or worn and is normally in response to a report from a tenant.
As set out in the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for ensuring that installations it provides, such as basins, sinks, baths, and toilets are kept in good working order.
All registered providers of social housing must comply with the Home Standard as set out by the Regulator of Social housing. The Home standard requires providers of social housing to ensure they have a planned approach to repairs and maintenance of homes and should demonstrate an appropriate balance of planned and responsive repairs and value for money.
On its website the landlord explains that it maintains its homes as per the decent homes standard. It states that planned maintenance is prioritised based on the age and condition of the components. In addition, it provides guidance on when a resident should expect components in their home to be replaced. As a guide the landlord would expect to replace a bathroom/shower room and WCs every 30 years. It adds that on occasion budget restraints, and on some occasions other homes that need to take priority, can affect when planned maintenance works are carried out.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the request having been received.
The landlord will not deal with complaints where the issue giving rise to the complaint happened over 6 months earlier.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s handling of requests for a refurbished bathroom

There is no dispute from either party that an independent surveyor inspected the property in 2017. However, it does appear that the purpose of the inspection was not made clear to the resident at the time. The resident believed that the inspection was to assess for a new bathroom, while in its stage 2 response the landlord explained that the survey was to inform future planned works, and that according to its records the survey did not outline the need for an urgent replacement. This Service has not seen a copy of the survey that was completed. An appropriate recommendation will be made in respect of this.
While evidence provided by the landlord is limited, it has shown that in 2019 when the resident phoned to ask about a proposed date for a bathroom refurbishment, it did explain that the time scale given for planned works was not guaranteed and she would be contacted by a surveyor beforehand. The landlord’s response was in line with its guidance. In addition, the guidance suggests that bathrooms should be replaced every 30 years.
Social landlords have limited budgets and are expected to use resources effectively for the benefit of all residents. The landlord would not be expected to replace items within a property at the resident’s request unless the item in question was beyond economical repair. Doing so would be considered an improvement which the landlord is not strictly obliged to do. In addition, landlords are entitled to complete work to replace kitchens and bathrooms as part of a planned programme of works rather than on an ad-hoc basis unless the item in question is beyond economic repair. The landlord has explained that at the time of the survey it had been advised that the bathroom would not need replacing within 10 years. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of a surveyor.
In its response the landlord accepted that it had not managed the resident’s expectations. The landlord also accepted that the notes it held on its system regarding the issue complained about were lacking, and as a resolution for both this and poor expectation management the landlord offered compensation of £50. In addition, it explained that it had discussed with the relevant team the importance of keeping comprehensive notes. It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged these failings, and this Service agrees that it was appropriate to make an offer of compensation for the failings highlighted. An appropriate recommendation will be made in respect of record-keeping.
A responsible landlord must be in control of its repairs service at all times to avoid unnecessary delays and poor service delivery. As outlined in the knowledge and information spotlight report published by this Service in May 2023, the Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain clear and detailed records so that they can provide efficient and effective services and to ensure that any decision or actions taken are based on good quality information. Communication with residents can be improved when staff are able to access all relevant and up to date information, allowing a good understanding of the issue.
The landlord accepted that it had failed in its communication with the resident and explained that it was resolution focused. To that end it committed to carrying out a survey of the bathroom and stated that it would action the surveyor’s recommendations. This was an appropriate response and demonstrated that the landlord was keen to find a resolution to the complaint.
In addition, it offered £75 in compensation, which it explained was for its delay responding to the complaint and for time, trouble and inconvenience including poor expectation management.
Not withstanding the review of the complaint that the landlord carried out in May 2023 and the additional offer of compensation, this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a refurbished bathroom.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a refurbished bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the residents complaint in respect of the landlord’s handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from a neighbouring property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord recognised its failings and explained to the resident the steps that it had taken to put this right. In addition, it made a monetary offer of compensation and agreed to carry out a survey of the bathroom with a commitment to action the surveyor’s recommendations.
The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings highlighted in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £575 which includes:
  1. £100 offered at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process. If this payment has already been made it should be deducted from the total.
  2. £475 offered following its review in May 2023. If this payment has already been made it should be deducted from the total

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord reviews its record keeping in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management published in May 2023, and provide this Service with evidence of how it has considered the recommendations set out in the report.