Peabody Trust (202213984)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213984

Peabody Trust

25 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 leaseholder 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 leaseholder’s report of a leak.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The leaseholder owned a 2-bedroom flat between March 2006 and April 2023. The landlord is a housing association and the freeholder.
Between February 2021 and September 2022 the leaseholder said that he reported a leak to his kitchen ceiling approximately 4 times. The landlord completed repairs but around 8 September 2022 the leaseholder reported that the leak had returned. On 20 September 2022 the leaseholder complained to the landlord saying that he had reported the leak several times previously but it always came back.
On 4 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had noted the leaseholder had reported leaks from the roof for some time, and, despite the landlord conducting repairs, with the last being in February 2022, it had not fully resolved the issue. The landlord said it would attend on 7 October 2022 to inspect the roof. Thereafter, it would monitor the repairs until they were completed. The landlord said it would contact the leaseholder after it had completed the repairs to check if he was satisfied and calculate a compensation offer.
On 4 May 2023 the landlord issued a further stage 1 response in which it said:
1. it acknowledged and apologised that it had not communicated effectively with the leaseholder about the repair and follow-on works which had led to confusion
2. it acknowledged there had been delays in it completing the repairs, which it said it had completed in March 2023
3. it had raised works for the damp and mould works in the leaseholder’s property, which required further time to dry out properly before completing treatment and decoration
4. as a resolution it offered £350 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience
Following further contact from the leaseholder, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £500. £100 per service failure and £100 for poor complaint handling.
On 9 May 2023 the leaseholder informed the landlord that he was not happy with the landlord’s increased offer at stage 1 and asked it to escalate his complaint.
On 28 June 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response, in which it said:
1. It apologised for the time taken for it to respond to the leaseholder’s complaint and the inconvenience caused due to the roofing repairs.
2. It had completed further repairs to the roof, above a neighbouring property, in June 2022.
3. The leaseholder had reported a leak on 3 September 2022 and there had been several repairs raised afterwards.
4. It accepted its service had fallen short of what it would expect.
5. It recognised the leaseholder had to follow-up on several occasions to request updates.
6. There had been issues accessing the roof area and delays.
7. The leak was finally resolved in March 2023.
8. It acknowledged there had been an error in communication around the internal repairs (treatment and redecoration).
9. It clarified it was only responsible for the external, structural, and communal repairs for leasehold properties and it should not have recorded the leaseholder’s internal repairs.
10. It requested the leaseholder make a claim via his own building insurance or contact the landlord’s insurance team for clarification.
11. It recognised it had been a difficult situation for the leaseholder but it was unable to cover the leaseholder’s loss of rental income, because this was not covered within the landlord’s compensation policy.
12. It referred to an earlier email sent to the leaseholder on 15 February 2022 in which the landlord had provided advice concerning loss of rental income and costs for remedial works when it had signposted the leaseholder to his insurance policy.
13. By way of recognition the landlord offered compensation of £850 which it broke down as follows:
  1. £250 – complaint handling.
  2. £600 – time, trouble and inconvenience.
In communication with this service the leaseholder said he was not happy with the amount of compensation offered by the landlord. As an outcome the leaseholder said he would like the landlord to:
1. Compensate him for the rental income he lost whilst the property was empty due to the leak.
2. Compensate him for the costs he had incurred to complete repairs and redecorate his property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The leaseholder raised a complaint about similar issues in October 2021. This complaint was dealt with through the landlord’s complaint process and the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 15 February 2022. The leaseholder has confirmed that he accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation at this point. There is no evidence that the leaseholder escalated this complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure, nor that he was prevented from doing so. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the complaint from October 2021 is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and not one that this service will investigate. This is because it had not completed the landlord’s internal complaint procedure.
This report will focus on events from September 2022 onwards, which is when the leaseholder next reported the leak, and whether the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. We may describe events from earlier than September 2022 where they provide important context.

The leaseholder’s report of a leak

The lease states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing and renewing the roof, foundations and main structure of the building.
Both the leaseholder and his property agent have brought these matters to the attention of the landlord. For this report we shall refer to any communication between the landlord and the leaseholder’s representative as communication with the leaseholder.
It is not disputed that there have been intermittent leaks from the roof over a prolonged period. The evidence shows that the landlord tried to fix the leak in 2021 and 2022, works included applying a waterproof coating to the roof and clearing the gutters.
At the beginning of September 2022 the leaseholder reported that the leak had started again in his kitchen ceiling. The landlord informed the leaseholder that it had arranged for its contractor to attend on 7 October 2022 to inspect the roof. This appointment did not go ahead because the landlord did not know how to open a hatch, close to the leaseholder’s property, to access the roof and whether it needed a key. After making further enquiries, the landlord discovered this hatch was an automatic opening vent (AOV) which provided emergency access to the roof. However, it then identified that this AOV was broken and could not be used. The landlord then explored the option of erecting scaffolding, which caused further delay. Eventually the contractor used another AOV in the building to access the roof. Landlords should keep detailed records of all access details for their properties. The lack of this information caused a delay of 2 months which was not reasonable.
The landlord arranged to inspect the property on 25 November 2022, which the landlord recorded as no access. The leaseholder said this was due to the contractor not contacting him to arrange access. The landlord rearranged the inspection for 14 December 2022, which it then cancelled due to icy weather conditions. Although this was inconvenient for the leaseholder, it was reasonable of the landlord to consider the health and safety implications for its staff and contractors.
On 2 December 2022 the leaseholder reported that he was collecting water in buckets and he was worried that the ceiling might collapse because of the leak. The landlord agreed to arrange an emergency appointment and asked the leaseholder to confirm when someone would be available to let it in. The appointment went ahead on 8 December 2022. The contractor checked the ceiling and confirmed, although there was some damage, it was not going to fall down.
The leaseholder also reported black mould on the ceiling on 2 December 2022. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy states it will investigate all reports of damp, mould and condensation where it has responsibility for the repairs. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it had raised the damp and mould works to the building repair log, instead of the leaseholder’s repair log. It apologised for this and advised that, following resolution of the leak, the property would need a further couple of months for the walls to fully dry before treatment and decoration. However, in its stage 2 complaint response it said it was only responsible for the external, structural, and communal repairs for leasehold properties and it should not have recorded the leaseholder’s internal repairs.
In this case, the landlord was aware there had been an ongoing roof leak which had affected the leaseholder’s property for some time. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have been proactive in assessing whether the leak had contributed to the mould in the property.
Once the landlord was on notice that there was mould affecting the property it should have inspected the property and decided if there was anything it could do to mitigate the impact on the leaseholder. It should have considered whether it needed to complete any temporary repairs, an initial mould wash or whether dehumidifiers were required to address the moisture and humidity levels in the property. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord considered this, which was a failure.
The landlord rearranged the inspection of the roof for 16 February 2023, which it said would include a dye test to trace the leak. However, having received reports the leak was affecting other leaseholders, the landlord decided to complete a further inspection to assess whether it was more cost effective to replace the whole roof, instead of completing separate repairs. Again, although this was inconvenient for the leaseholder, it was reasonable that the landlord considered this to ensure that it completed a lasting and effective repair. The records indicate that the landlord completed the repair at the end of April 2023.
Once the landlord was aware of a leak affecting the property in September 2022, it should have inspected the roof within a reasonable time. The law does not specifically define what is considered a reasonable time, but this should depend on how serious or urgent the problem is and how vulnerable the people living in the property are. It is not clear whether the landlord categorised the repair as “emergency” or “routine” but the landlord’s repairs policy states that it will make safe an emergency repair within 4 hours and complete the repair within 24 hours (if required it will finalise the repair within its routine repair targets). For routine repairs it will book a scheduled appointment and aim to deliver within an average of 10 days (these repairs may take longer, due to complexity).
The Ombudsman appreciates that this was a complex issue, and the landlord had previously taken steps to try and resolve the leak. However, it took approximately 8 months for the landlord to resolve the leak reported in September 2022. During this time the leaseholder continued to report water was leaking into his property, causing damage to the ceiling and decorations. This delay was not appropriate because it was not consistent with its repair policy.
The Ombudsman expects where there is a delay in completing repairs, landlords should be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of delays to residents
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays
In this case, the leaseholder had to chase the landlord for updates throughout the complaint. Although the landlord did respond appropriately with the leaseholder, this could have been improved if the landlord had taken a more proactive approach. However, we can see that there were times when the landlord shared information with the leaseholder, provided him with updates on why the delays had occurred and what the next steps were. This was especially evident throughout October 2022 and November 2022 when the landlord was trying to arrange access to the roof.
The leaseholder informed the landlord that he lost 2 tenants due to the leaks and the delays in the landlord completing a lasting repair. The leaseholder said this had a financial impact on him as he lost rental income during this time. He has also explained he had to decorate his property on at least 4 occasions to repair the damage caused by the leak. The leaseholder asked the landlord to consider these issues in its compensation offer.
The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy sets out when it may not consider paying compensation, where a leaseholder can claim on their own home contents insurance or building insurance. It also states that where a leaseholder lets out their property, the landlord will not compensate for loss of rental income.
In its stage 2 response the landlord explained that its compensation policy did not cover the loss of rental income. It referred the leaseholder to previous advice given in his complaint from December 2021 regarding liability claims and contacting the landlord’s insurance team. The landlord could have provided more detailed information in its complaint response rather than referring the leaseholder to previous correspondence, which he may no longer have had a copy of. However, the landlord communicated several times with the leaseholder during, and after his complaint, regarding insurance claims, when it provided detailed information of what the leaseholder needed to do to recover these costs. Therefore overall, the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s request was appropriate because it was consistent with its policy.
In summary, there were failures by the landlord in that it:
1. unreasonably delayed in repairing the leak to the roof
2. failed to consider if any temporary repairs, a mould wash, or dehumidifiers were required to mitigate the impact of the mould on the leaseholder
The Ombudsman would consider this 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 leaseholder’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.
The landlord acted fairly by it apologising for the inconvenience caused to the leaseholder due to the roofing repairs. It demonstrated learning from outcomes in its stage 2 complaint response by explaining that it was closely monitoring contractors and repair performance to avoid recurrence.
The landlord showed its attempt to put things right by completing the repair to the roof in April 2023 and by offering the leaseholder compensation. The leaseholder was renting the property out at the time and therefore the impact on the leaseholder were the time, trouble, and inconvenience spent pursuing an outcome. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered £600 in recognition this.
Having considered the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, a fairer level of compensation would be £800. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in this case.

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 leaseholder made his initial complaint on 20 September 2022. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 4 October 2022. The landlord said it would wait until it had completed the repairs and would then assess any compensation due to the leaseholder. The records indicate the landlord completed the repair at the end of April 2023. It sent a further stage 1 response to the leaseholder on 4 May 2023 with its offer of compensation for the identified failures. Following communication with the leaseholder, the landlord increased its offer of compensation on 9 May 2023.
The response contained incorrect information, for example the landlord said the leaseholder had reported the leak in October 2022 and it had completed the repair by the end of October 2022. As set out earlier in this report, the leaseholder reported the leak in September 2022 and the landlord completed the repair in April 2023.
There were many times when the leaseholder contacted the landlord between October 2022 and May 2023 when he expressed his dissatisfaction with the service he was receiving. It is the opinion of the Ombudsman that the landlord ought to have recognised this and escalated the complaint to stage 2 sooner.
The leaseholder escalated his complaint on 9 May 2023. He contacted the landlord on 15 May 2023 because he had not received an acknowledgement. The landlord said it acknowledged the leaseholder’s escalation during a telephone conversation with the leaseholder the week before. There is no file note or record to evidence that this conversation took place. This was a record keeping failure by the landlord.
On 12 June 2023 the landlord informed the leaseholder that it required additional time to complete its investigation. This was 24 days after the leaseholder had requested to escalate his complaint. The landlord should have informed the leaseholder that it required additional time much sooner.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 28 June 2023. Paragraph 5.13 of the Code states where a landlord requires additional time to complete an investigation, this should not exceed 10 days. In this case the landlord took an additional 13 days to provide its stage 2 response, which was a failure. Further to this the landlord’s complaint process took approximately 8 months to complete. The landlord missed several opportunities to recognise the complaint escalation and as a consequence, has in effect followed a 3-stage complaint process which unnecessarily and unreasonably delayed the leaseholder’s ability to seek redress through this Service. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the Code.
In summary, the landlord:
1. failed to acknowledge the complaint at stage 1
2. delayed in providing a response at stage 1
3. delayed in escalating the complaint at stage 2
4. delayed in providing a response at stage 2
The Ombudsman would consider these failures to amount to maladministration.
In its complaint response the landlord offered compensation of £250 for its complaint handling.
The landlord’s offer of £250 is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the leaseholder but there was no permanent impact. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has made an offer of redress to the leaseholder which resolves the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the leaseholder’s report of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the leaseholder’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. pay the leaseholder compensation of £1,050 which is comprised of:
  1. £800 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the leak
  2. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s complaint
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 leaseholder. All payments must be paid directly to the leaseholder and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the leaseholder.
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.