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

Peabody Trust (202224108)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224108

Peabody Trust

24 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
    2. Reports that the rear access to the property was overgrown.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a 1 bedroom basement flat. The landlord has not provided a record of when her tenancy began. The landlord told this Service it did not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, the evidence indicates that the resident has reported she has a disability, is partially sighted, and has a heart condition.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in November 2022 (the exact date is unclear) to report concerns about damp and mould in her property. The landlord raised a repair, on 24 November 2022, to complete a “minor mould treatment”, stain block, and repaint. It does not appear the repair took place at that time.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 November 2022 and reported overgrown bushes to communal path to rear of property. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 25 January 2023 to clear the overgrown vegetation blocking the rear access.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 January 2023 to make a complaint about its handling of the damp, and the associated repairs. She explained she had been “chasing repairs”, but it had not got back to her. The landlord raised a further mould treatment on 23 February 2023. It does not appear the repair took place at that time.
  5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 23 March 2023. It accepted it had taken “nearly a year” to resolve the issue, and that the resident had indicated further investigation was needed. It outlined the repairs it had undertaken, and further planned repairs. It apologised and offered the resident £300 in compensation for its handling of the damp issue, and £200 in compensation for its “poor complaint handling”.
  6. The landlord completed a mould treatment and redecoration works on 4 April 2023. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, and asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2 on 21 April 2023.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 19 June 2023 and said it had decided to conduct a further survey of the roof, due to the resident’s ongoing concern about the issue. It would then do a “desktop survey” to see if the repairs raised at stage 1 were completed. It outlined its position on the outstanding repairs, and apologised for the delay in attending to the repairs. It offered the resident £700 in compensation for its handling of the damp and mould issue, and £250 for its complaint handling. It advised it would keep the complaint open to monitor its outstanding actions.

Events after the complaints procedure

  1. The landlord raised an ‘urgent works order’ on 27 July 2023 to install a ‘humidistat’ fan in the bedroom. The exact date it was installed is unclear from the records provided.
  2. The resident contacted this Service on 15 January 2024, and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was “not getting anywhere” and had a “constant fight” to get repairs completed. The resident stated she was sleeping in the living room due to the damp and mould in her bedroom.
  3. The evidence indicates that the landlord conducted a further inspection of the property in relation to damp and mould in February 2024, and sought to raise an “urgent” work order.

Assessment and findings

Reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
  2. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy stated that for emergency repairs it will attend within 4 hours to make safe. The policy states that non-urgent repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days, with an “average target” of 10 working days.
  4. The resident’s current landlord merged with the resident’s previous landlord (Catalyst Housing) in April 2022. The resident’s previous landlord was responsible for the repairs when first reported, and responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The resident’s current landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint. For clarity, this report refers to both the previous and current landlord as “the landlord”.
  5. The landlord told this Service that it did not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, when she made her complaint the resident explicitly stated she had a disability, was visually impaired, and had a heart condition. That the landlord did not record this accurately on its systems was unreasonable, and a failing in its record keeping.
  6. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristics. The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not have due regard for whether the resident had a disability, as defined by the Equality Act. The resident expressed a concern about her ongoing health, and living with damp conditions. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord addressed this concern, or adapted its approach accordingly. It did not have due regard for its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s unique circumstances, her disability, and the potential impact of damp on her health.
  7. It is evident that the records kept by the resident’s previous landlord were poor, which impacted on its ability to respond when the landlord took over. The records kept by the resident’s current landlord are also poor and it is not possible to determine when some proposed repairs were completed. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated it was on notice about damp and mould from April 2022, as it referred to a repairs visit. We have seen no evidence of this in the repair log provided, which is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping. We note the resident claims to have reported the issue in March 2022. We have been unable to corroborate this, but given the comments in its stage 1 response, it is reasonable to conclude she reported it when claimed.
  8. The evidence shows the landlord raised a repair in relation to the reported damp and mould in November 2022, citing it as “minor mould”. It is unclear how the landlord reached the conclusion that the mould was “minor”. We have seen no recorded details of the inspection that took place prior to the works, or that an appropriate level of investigation was completed. The landlord did not adopt the recommended approach to damp and mould, as set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report. To reach a conclusion the mould was “minor” without a thorough investigation was unreasonable.
  9. The report said that landlord’s need “technical staff and repairs managers willing and able to properly inspect and remedy issues was crucial to being able to identify root causes” of damp and mould. It is apparent that the landlord did not conduct an appropriately thorough assessment of the property to identify possible “root causes” of the damp and mould. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions she reported that the landlord did not appropriately investigate at that time increased that distress.
  10. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not complete the works it raised in November 2022, which was a further failing in its handling of the matter. The resident experienced frustration of the landlord raising works to try and address the issue, without them going ahead. Given the conditions she reported, this is concerning.
  11. After the resident complained about its handling of the matter, in January 2023, the landlord raised the “minor mould” treatment again February 2023. Again, we have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord sought to conduct a thorough inspection at that time. The resident’s distress at the lack of thorough investigation is evident. She expressed a concern to the landlord, in an email in February 2023, that it was simply “painting over” the mould, and it would come back. According to the repair log provided, this work was completed on 4 April 2023, which nearly 5 months after it first raised the job. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs policy, and a further failing in its handling of the matter. The further delay increased the distress experienced by the resident.
  12. The landlord failed to adopt the approach recommended in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould which states landlords must ensure “investigations are thorough and that appropriate tools are used”. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord conducted a thorough investigation or used the appropriate tools to investigate the levels of damp within the property. That it raised works to ‘treat’ the mould and redecorate without further investigation of the causes, was unreasonable.
  13. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of March 2023, cited that it completed repairs to the roof in November 2022. Again, there is no record of this repair in the repair log provided for this investigation. This is a further failing in its record keeping. It is noted that the resident raised a concern about the accuracy of the comments made in the stage 1 response, with regards to the roof. Given the lack of available records, it is not possible to corroborate whether the roof repair took place in November 2022, as the landlord claimed. It is noted that it raised a further inspection as part of the stage 2 response, which was appropriate.
  14. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also stated it would fit a new ‘humidistat’ fan in the bedroom, and the works were booked for 31 March 2023. The evidence shows that it did not take place at that time, which caused further frustration to the resident. Internal emails, from July 2023, indicate that the repair did not go ahead and the job was “suspended” by the contractor. This is evidence that there was a lack of appropriate oversight by the landlord of its contractors.
  15. The landlord apologised for its handling of the replacement fan in its stage 2 complaint response, of June 2023, and gave an explanation of what caused the delay. This is evidence it sought to build trust with the resident, and reassure it was taking the repair seriously. This was appropriate in the circumstances. However, that it did not raise the job until 27 July 2023, over a month after its stage 2 response, was unreasonable.
  16. The records indicate that the ‘humidistat’ fan was not installed. The evidence shows the landlord’s contractor sought to book the repair with the resident during August and September 2023, and the resident did not want to allow the repair to go ahead until she received responses to her queries. This can reasonably be concluded to have impacted on the landlord’s ability to complete the repair. However, the evidence also shows that the landlord’s poor oversight of its contractors, and lack of follow up on the repair in March 2023, contributed to the delay. Its handling of the replacement fan was unreasonable.
  17. The resident claimed that her possessions were damaged due to the landlord’s poor handling of the damp and mould issue. The landlord admitted failings in relation to its handling of the damp, mould, and associated repair. It explained that some of the compensation it offered was for the damage caused. It is unclear how much of the total offered was for the alleged damage. However, that it did not refer the resident to its own insurer, so she could pursue a claim for the damage was inappropriate, and a shortcoming in its handling of the matter. As such, an appropriate order is set out below.
  18. The comments in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in relation to the damp and mould issue, are concerning. It is noted the landlord sought to raise a further inspection of the roof, which was appropriate. However, its comments that it would complete a “desk top survey” to ensure raised repairs were completed was inappropriate. Its response accepted there were issues with completing repairs, and its records, as a result of its merger.
  19. Considering the conditions the resident had reported, and its acceptance of the issues caused by the merger, it would have been appropriate to raise a thorough inspection at that time. This is further evidence that it did not adopt the recommended approach set out in the spotlight report on damp and mould, to establish root causes of the conditions the resident was reporting. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
  20. The landlord accepted its handling of the damp, mould, and associated repairs was poor and offered the resident a total of £700 in compensation for the “time, trouble, and inconvenience” caused by its handling of the matter. The landlord’s stage 2 response was detailed and showed learning. This was appropriate, and we welcome the fact it offered compensation to try and put things right for the resident. However, the evidence shows that the issue was outstanding at the time it offered compensation. The replacement of the fan was still outstanding, and the resident was still reporting mould within the property. Considering this, we have determined the £700 it offered did not fully put things right for the resident.
  21. That it was required to complete a further inspection in relation to the damp and mould, in February 2024, supports the conclusion that it had not investigated or identified the “root cause” of the issue within a reasonable timeframe. This was inappropriate. We note that the landlord raised further works to treat the mould in the bedroom, install thermal boards, and passive vents. While we welcome the fact the landlord complete further works in order to rectify the issue, we have seen no evidence of the outcome of the inspection, or that it had the appropriate level of thoroughness, as recommended in our spotlight report.
  22.  Considering the landlord has been unable to provide evidence that its inspections of the damp and mould were done with the appropriate thoroughness, and by operatives with the relevant expertise, we have made an appropriate order below.
  23. There were delays in attending to the repairs the landlord raised, and its record keeping around the repairs was poor. There is no evidence to indicate it conducted a thorough survey to establish the “root cause” of the reported damp and mould when it put on notice about the issue.
  24. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions reported, and reported she was unable to sleep in the bedroom. The issue was still ongoing 2 years after it was first reported. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerability, and her individual circumstances, in line with its public sector equality duty. We have therefore determined there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and associated repairs, and an appropriate series of orders are set out below.
  25. The Ombudsman considers it appropriate to require the landlord to provide financial redress which recognises the resident did not have full enjoyment of the property for a substantial period due to the various repairs. It is of particular concern that the resident reported, as recently as January 2024, that she was sleeping in the living room due to the mould in the bedroom. We have therefore decided to order a 15% amenity loss calculation, in recognition of the loss of enjoyment of part of the property. The period considered for this calculation is November 2022 (when we have evidence the landlord was put on notice) to 19 June 2023, (when it issued its stage 2 complaint). This period covers 33 weeks.
  26. During the period covering her complaint, the resident was paying a total of £155 in rent. We have calculated 15% of the rent for the 33 week period was £767.25, and have ordered the landlord to pay that amount in recognition of the loss of amenity. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.

Review of policies and practice

  1. The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving damp and mould. As a result of these; a wider order has been issued to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This was for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
  2. As part of case 202122259, the landlord was ordered to carry out a review, within 12 weeks of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to damp and mould. The landlord was ordered to revisit the issues after 6 months to ensure changes in practice were embedded. The landlord is due to revisit the issue in October 2024. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases and so the learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Reports that the rear access to the property was overgrown

  1. The landlord was put on notice about the overgrown access on 30 November 2022. The evidence shows it attended to the repair on 25 January 2023. This was 57 days after the issue was reported, and well outside of its target repair timeframes. The resident was inconvenienced by this unreasonable delay. The evidence shows the resident was concerned about the issue preventing her safe exit from the property, in case of a fire. The unreasonable delay in attending to the issue increased her concern and distress.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord sought to get further information about the repair, from its contractor, in June 2023. That it needed to do so supports the conclusion that its records in relation to the repair were poor.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of March 2023, was inappropriate in how it addressed the issue. The response included a brief description of the repair that was raised, but gave no assessment of its handling of the matter, when the repair was completed, or how it would monitor the situation going forward. This was inappropriate, and a further failing in its handling of the matter. The lack of meaningful engagement on the issue caused was evidently frustrating for the resident.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of June 2023, was similarly inappropriate in its lack of assessment of its handling of the matter. While it set out that it had cleared the access in January 2023, it did not assess its handling of the matter up to that point. This was inappropriate. That it advised the resident it would clear the access again was appropriate. However, it offered no indication of what the “preventative” works would be, or when it hoped to complete them by. The lack of detail on the issue did little to build trust with the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously.
  5. As part of our investigation in June 2024, we asked the landlord what further works it completed at the rear access, and what “preventative” works it completed. The landlord did not provide any further evidence other than what was already supplied for this investigation. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord did not complete any further, or preventative, works. As such we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter and set out a series of orders below.

 

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint procedure. Its procedure states that it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and send a response within 10 working days. It states it will send stage 2 responses within 20 working days.
  2. This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint in January 2023. This was a failing in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days, with the landlord setting out its understanding of what the complaint is about. That the landlord did not do so means the resident missed an opportunity to ensure it had the correct understanding of his complaint, and was left not knowing when, or if, it would respond to his complaint.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response 38 working days after it was made. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay, and offered the resident compensation to try and put things right. This was appropriate. However, its response did not offer an explanation for the delay, or what it would do to prevent similar delays happening again. This was poor complaint handling.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint 40 working days after it was made. This was outside of the timeframes set out in the landlord’s policy and the Code. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to seek assistance from this Service on 23 May 2023 to get a response. The resident was inconvenienced by a protracted, and hard to access complaints process.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered an apology, and made an increased offer of £250 in compensation in recognition of the complaint handling delays. Unlike its stage 1 response, the stage 2 response showed learning and gave an explanation of why there were delays. It acknowledged the “high effort” the resident had made in order to get a response, and outlined improvements it had made to its service to improve complaint handling. This was appropriate in the circumstances. Considering the level of detail in its explanation, the level of redress offered, and the learning shown we have determined the redress offered was reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
  2.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the rear access to the property was overgrown.
  3. In accordance with 53(b) the landlord, the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Instruct a senior director to apologise, in person, for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £1,867.25 in compensation. The landlord should deduct the £700 it offered for its handling of the damp, mould, and associated repairs, if it has already been paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £767.25 in recognition of the loss of amenity caused by its handling of the damp, mould, and associated repairs.
      2. £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp, mould, and associated repairs.
      3. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports that the rear access to the property was overgrown.
    3. The landlord must provide the relevant details about how the resident can make a claim on its insurance for damage to her possessions.
    4. Provide the resident with an action plan of how it will monitor the rear access to ensure it does not become overgrown.
  2. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to instruct a mutually agreed, damp specialist, surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The inspection should:
    1. Be a full inspection of the property to identify possible causes of damp and mould
    2. Consider the resident’s concerns about ongoing repairs issues in the property.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord pay the resident the £250 in compensation it offered for its complaint handling if it has not already done so.