Peabody Trust (202228723)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228723

Peabody Trust

6 December 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of disrepair works.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a housing association.
In May 2022, the landlord received a legal letter of disrepair claim from solicitors on behalf of the resident. This raised a number of issues including an intermittent water leak from the bathroom and damage caused by this, which included damp and mould, large gaps to the front door, defective air vents in the bedroom window and a missing internal kitchen door. The letter said some of these issues had been present since 2015 and 2016 and the resident had reported these to the landlord on numerous occasions.
The landlord inspected the property on 16 June 2022 and noted the overall condition was good but some repairs were required. It said that the works were not too intrusive and could be completed with the resident in situ, and would take around 3 weeks.
In January 2023, the resident’s solicitors made an offer to settle the claim. This included a payment for damages and the landlord to complete all repair works identified during the inspection in June 2022, within 3 months. The landlord replied to the legal letter of claim on 3 February 2023 denying liability . It declined to pay damages but agreed it would complete all repairs within 3 months. A works order was raised for the works 4 days later.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 17 February 2023. She said she had been left living in the property while major works were carried out and this was not a healthy environment. She was told the works would take 3 weeks but the landlord ultimately had to take the whole ceiling down to locate the leak because it was not coming from the bathroom, as originally suspected.
The landlord noted the disrepair works were completed at the end of March 2023 and on 3 April 2023, it provided its stage 1 response. This said it was unable to review the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint as this was a legal disrepair claim that was being dealt with by its legal disrepair taskforce.
In early May 2023, the resident escalated her complaint with the landlord, via this Service. She said she had been unable to live in the property for 5 weeks because of the works carried out. The property had been left dirty and some of her personal items had been damaged. She asked for the property to be cleaned and for compensation for the damaged items and distress caused.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 June 2023. This said the stage 1 complaint could not be investigated as the matter had been through the legal process. Therefore, it was unable to carry out a review of the complaint. The same day the resident told this Service she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response as it had not visited the property to assess the damage or mess and some of the works were carried out to a poor standard.
After further contact from the resident in September 2023, regarding the condition of the property, the landlord agreed to clean the property and carpets. It attended in October 2023 and January 2024 but no works went ahead. In February 2024, it agreed to replace 2 carpets, but has since told this Service that this did not go ahead because the resident declined to sign a waiver prior to contractors moving her furniture, for the carpet to be installed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has reported that some of these issues have been ongoing since 2015 and 2016. Complaints should be brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months. This is so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues while they are still ‘live’ and the evidence is available to properly investigate them (reflected at paragraph 42.c of the Scheme). In this case, the resident made a formal complaint in February 2023 and this investigation has included events 12 months prior to this. Anything that happened before February 2022, is considered for context but not assessed or determined as part of this investigation.
The resident told the landlord that dust caused by the works negatively affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
The resident reported that some of her personal belongings were damaged by the landlord’s contractor during the completion of the works. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination in respect of liability as this would need to be assessed via an insurance claim (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). What the Ombudsman can consider is how the landlord responded to this issue and whether this was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
In recent contact with this Service, the resident also reported that she has black mould in the property. This issue has emerged since the works were completed in March 2023 and the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint in June 2023. Therefore, this issue has not been addressed via the landlord’s internal complaints process and falls outside the scope of this investigation (reflected at paragraph 42.a of the Scheme). However, a recommendation is made for the landlord to contact the resident regarding this issue and agree what, if any, action it will take to investigate and address this and confirm whether the resident wants the matter raised a formal complaint.

Handling of disrepair works

The landlord’s repairs policy at the time said that the landlord was responsible for repairs to window frames, plumbing leaks, front doors, plastering, leaks, damp and mould (unless caused by resident lifestyle) and internal fire doors. It said the resident was responsible for internal decorations. However, in this case, as the damage to decoration was caused by a plumbing leak, it was reasonable that the landlord accepted responsibility for repairing it.
The landlord’s decant policy at the time said that a non-emergency decant was one where a property required extensive works that could not be carried out with the resident in the property. Wherever possible, it would carry out major repairs while residents remained in their home. When the landlord first inspected the property in June 2022, it confirmed the scope of works needed and assessed whether a decant was required, which was appropriate. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its surveyor to inform its decision, so it was reasonable that it concluded a decant was not required.
The scope of works set out in June 2023 included removal of a section of the living room ceiling. However, the resident’s complaint indicated that the scope was extended to remove the entire ceiling in order to detect the leak. As the scope of the works changed, the landlord should have reviewed whether a decant was required. The resident also raised concerns about the level of dust in the property affecting her health, which should have prompted a review of its position regarding a decant.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord reconsidered whether a decant was required. While it is not the role of the Ombudsman to say whether the resident should or should not have been decanted, it is clear that the landlord should have done more to consider whether this was required. Particularly considering the change in the scope of the works and the impact on the resident’s health. The landlord’s failure to do so amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling that it was not taking the matter seriously and did not care about how the works were affecting her. An order is made for the landlord to share lessons learnt from this case in respect of the handling of decants with all staff who assess and manage decants.
Considering the nature and scale of the works required, it was reasonable that the landlord treated these as specialist works, which its repairs policy at the time said it would complete within 60 days. The landlord’s repair records indicate that the works were completed in 52 days, which was within the committed timescale for major repairs.
The landlord initially said that the works would take 3 weeks to complete, however, these actually took approximately 6 weeks to complete. While frustrating for the resident, this was not a failure by the landlord as the scope of the works had to change due to the works being more complex than first identified. While the extension in the timescale was not a failure, the landlord’s failure to reconsider a decant was, as this extension should also have prompted a review of whether a decant was required.
The landlord completed a post-inspection with the resident on completion of the works, which was sensible to ensure they had been fully completed to the required standard. From the evidence provided, the resident signed to confirm she was satisfied with the works carried out and so it was reasonable that the landlord concluded these were completed. The resident has said she felt coerced to sign the works off but, in the absence of any supporting evidence, the Ombudsman cannot make any comment in that regard.
The resident subsequently raised concerns with the landlord about the quality of the works on 3 April 2023. In light of this, the landlord should have reattended to inspect and assess the resident’s concerns. There is no record that it did this or that it told the resident why it would not. This left her feeling ignored and amounts to maladministration. Therefore, an order is made for the landlord to inspect and reassess the quality of the works to identify any further works required.
The resident’s initial complaint raised in February 2023 included concerns about her having to give access to the contractor for 3 weeks, in relation to her work, as she could not work from home. This was an understandable concern and one which the landlord should have addressed and come to an arrangement with the resident on how access could be provided with as little disruption to her as possible. There is no record that the landlord did this or that it gave any consideration to the resident’s circumstances and how the works would impact her. This was inconsiderate and amounts to maladministration.
As part of the stage 2 escalation request, the resident raised concerns about the cleanliness of the property, particularly in relation to dust. Considering the type and scale of the works completed, the landlord should have pro-actively scheduled a clean of the property on the completion of the works.
When the resident chased this up in September 2023, there were some landlord internal emails which suggested this had been arranged but never carried out; although the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this arrangement. Where actions are arranged/ committed, it is important that the landlord monitors these to ensure completion. There is no evidence that happened in this case, which meant the resident incurred time and trouble to repeatedly chase this up.
The landlord did rearrange for the clean to be carried out in September 2023, however, it said that this did not go ahead due to the resident not giving access. From the records provided, the landlord’s cleaning contractor attended on 18 October 2023, but did so at a different time than arranged so the resident was not home. This was not a failure by the resident to give access and it was unfair of the landlord to place blame on her for this missed appointment.
There is evidence that the resident raised this with the landlord on the same day but no evidence that it made any further attempts to attend. While some time has now passed, the landlord should honour its commitment to carry out a clean of the property. Therefore, an order is made for the landlord to carry out a clean of the entire property, at a time convenient to the resident, which does not require her to take additional time off work.
Similarly, the landlord agreed to clean the carpets and its contractor attended on 16 January 2024. When it attended, there was a dispute about the areas to be cleaned and this resulted in no works being carried out. The resident said she raised this with the landlord but never received a response, which left her feeling ignored.
Ultimately, the landlord should have taken more proactive action to ensure the property was cleaned on completion of the works. While it took some actions to address this, this was only after a number of contacts from the resident and it did not do enough to follow up and monitor the works required through to completion. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling let down and living in a property with excessive dust and dirt.
The landlord subsequently agreed to replace some of the carpets, which was sensible. However, this has not gone ahead. It is understandable that furniture would need to be moved to allow this to happen and, where the landlord agrees to do this, it is reasonable that it asks a resident to sign a waiver prior to moving anything.
In this case, the landlord said the resident declined to sign a waiver, but it has provided no evidence showing that it proposed this with her, only an internal note stating that the waiver was required. Therefore, it is unclear whether the landlord actually suggested this to the resident. An order is made for the landlord to contact the resident in writing to reoffer the carpet replacement and provide her the waiver to sign, if she wishes. The written offer should include details of what carpets it will replace and an estimated timeframe for this to be completed, once the waiver is returned. If the resident does not wish to sign the waiver, then the landlord cannot be expected to progress with the replacement.
The resident told the landlord that some of her personal belongings were damaged during the completion of the works. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on liability as this is more appropriately considered via an insurance claim. Similarly, the landlord itself is not equipped to assess liability and, in these circumstances, it should refer residents to its insurance company. In this case, there is no record that the landlord did this.
Within internal landlord emails exchanged in September 2023, a member of landlord staff said there was no evidence that the resident’s belongings were damaged. However, this was not their assessment to make and they should have referred the resident to its insurance company to make a formal claim and submit any evidence she had. Its failure to do this amounts to maladministration. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide the resident with details of its insurance company and how to make a claim.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the disrepair works. Orders are made for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This has been calculated in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
In addition to this, the removal of the entire living room ceiling would have made the room unusable. Therefore, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £77.28 compensation for the loss of use of this room for the period of the works. This has been calculated at 10% of the rental charge for the 6 week period of the works, which is in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy at the time.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses declined to investigate the resident’s concerns due to the matter being part of a legal process. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said there were some things it would not deal with through its complaints procedure, including where legal action had begun. It defined legal action as being where a claim had been filed at court.
In this case, no claim was ever filed at court and so the landlord’s refusal to deal with the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint was incorrect and constitutes a complaint handling failure. This failure has enabled the Ombudsman to investigate these matters, despite them not having been fully considered by the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (reflected at paragraph 42.a of the Scheme).
An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training to all complaint handlers on pre-action protocol for housing conditions claims (the protocol) and service complaints, with reference to the Ombudsman’s guidance on this subject.
The resident’s complaint to the landlord, submitted on 17 February 2023, related to its handling of the works being carried out at her property at that time. While these works had been agreed as part of the protocol, the complaint itself was not about the historic actions or events that led to these works being carried out. The complaint was about the works themselves.
The landlord failed to identify this and this was another reason that its refusal to consider the complaint was incorrect. This was particularly frustrating for the resident as the landlord had previously encouraged her to make use of its internal complaints process in communications sent on 26 May 2022 and 3 February 2023, which were sent in response to the legal letter of claim received.
This suggestion was sensible and in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance (available on our website), which encourages residents to first consider whether following alternative dispute resolution avenues, such as the landlord’s internal complaints process and our investigation process, might be more beneficial than initiating the protocol. The landlord’s subsequent refusal to consider the complaint, after it had encouraged the resident to pursue one, was confusing and caused her to lose trust in the landlord as it was not being consistent in its communications.
In both the stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord said that any unresolved issues would be reviewed by its disrepair taskforce. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this happened or that any subsequent action was taken in respect of the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s refusal to investigate the resident’s concerns as a complaint or take any subsequent actions, meant that it missed the opportunity to identify its failings and put things right for her sooner. This was disappointing for the resident and made her feel that the landlord did not care about her or the issues she was experiencing.
From the evidence provided, the resident submitted her initial complaint to the landlord on at least 3 occasions in February and March 2023, but no action was taken or response provided. It was only after a 4th contact was made via this Service, on 17 March 2023, that the landlord logged and acknowledged the complaint 3 days later, on 20 March 2023. The stage 1 response was provided on 3 April 2023, which was 32 working days after the complaint was first made. This was significantly over the committed response time of 10 working days set out in the landlord’s complaints policy at the time.
The resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 was made via this Service on 2 May 2023. The landlord’s final response was provided 23 working days later, on 5 June 2023. This was, again, over the committed response time of 20 working days set out in the landlord’s complaints policy at the time.
Overall, considering the cumulative failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, this amounts to severe maladministration. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £600 compensation in recognition of the complaint handling failures. This amount has been calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of disrepair works.
2. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 6 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Share lessons learnt from this case in respect of the handling of decants with all staff who assess and manage decants.
2. Inspect the property to reassess the quality of the disrepair works completed and identify any further works required. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming the outcome of the inspection and any further works it will carry out, with a timeframe for these to be completed.
3. Carry out a deep clean of the entire property, at a time convenient to the resident that does not require her to take additional time off work.
4. Contact the resident in writing to reoffer the carpet replacement and provide her the waiver to sign regarding moving her furniture, if she wishes. The written offer should include details of what carpets it will replace and an estimated timeframe for this to be completed, once the waiver is returned. If the resident does not wish to sign the waiver, then the landlord cannot progress with the replacement.
5. Provide the resident with details of its insurance company and how to make a claim in relation to her damaged items.
6. Apologise to the resident for its handling of the disrepair works and formal complaint.
7. Pay the resident £1,277.28 compensation, made up of:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the disrepair works.
  2. £77.28 for the loss of use of the living room for the period of the works.
  3. £600 compensation for its complaint handling.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 6 weeks.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Scheme, within 10 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide staff training to all complaint handlers on pre-action protocol for housing conditions claims and service complaints, with reference to the Ombudsman’s guidance on this subject. This is available on our website at Guidance on pre-action protocol for housing conditions claims and service complaints – Housing Ombudsman. Evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service within 10 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to contact the resident regarding her reports of black mould in the property and agree what if any action it will take to investigate and address this issue, including whether she wants the matter raised a formal complaint.
The landlord to update this Service regarding its intentions with the above recommendation within 6 weeks.