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

Peabody Trust (202231355)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231355

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident has been a shared ownership leaseholder at the property since 23 March 2012. The landlord leases the building from the freeholder under the terms of a headlease. The current landlord merged with the resident’s previous landlord in 2017. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette on the 8th and 9th floors of a block. The resident has advised this Service that she had to take time off work due to stress related issues during the complaint. She lives in the property with her partner. She has advised that her partner is vulnerable due to allergies. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
  2. The resident says that she first reported a leak from above into the stairwell of the property in 2014. There is evidence that the walkway above the resident’s property flooded twice in 2020 causing water ingress into the resident’s property and her neighbour’s property. Following these reports, the landlord initially cleared the blocked drains on the walkway above. It later removed the channel drains, resealed the concrete, reinstated the drains, and applied a waterproof coating to the walkway. The repairs log for the property shows that a contractor completed this job in March 2021.
  3. In June 2021, the resident reported that water was entering the property again following heavy rain. She said that the leak was getting worse. A contractor cleared the drains on the walkway above again. The landlord provided her with contact details for the freeholder’s insurance company. However, they informed her that she should not contact them directly and they would only deal with the landlord. The landlord sent a surveyor to the property on 6 October 2021.
  4. The landlord met with the freeholder in November 2021. Following this meeting it told the resident that she could not claim on the building insurance until the source of the leak was established. It said that it had arranged for a water test to ascertain the source of the leak. It told the resident to repair the internal damage to the property herself.
  5. The resident complained via webform on 17 November 2021. She said that following torrential rain, water pooled on the walkway above and went underneath the front door of the property above which had caused a substantial leak into her property. She said that she had chased the landlord for updates on numerous occasions and was still waiting for a response. She said she reported the issue years before and now it was much more serious.
  6. The landlord responded on 18 and 22 November 2021. It said that it had escalated the repair, and its contractor would attend to inspect the roof. It said that it would make good the bowed ceiling in her property.
  7. The landlord completed a water test on the communal balcony above the property in November 2021 by using a hose pipe to run water onto it for 30 minutes. This water did not enter the property. Therefore, the landlord told the resident that the leak was not caused by the drainage but was probably caused by a roof defect which was the responsibility of the freeholder.
  8. The resident chased the landlord for updates throughout December 2021 and January 2022. On 18 January 2022 it told her that it had raised repairs jobs to investigate the plumbing in the flats above the property.
  9. In March 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to ask if the leak was ongoing. She explained that it only occurred when there was torrential rain. She said that the landlord had told her that it would carry out a dye test from the roof. The landlord told her that the freeholder had inspected the roof, and it was awaiting a report. It explained that it had also inspected the plumbing of some of the flats above but had not yet accessed them all.
  10. On 7 April 2022, the landlord raised a repairs job to carry out a dye test and to check the plumbing of 6 properties located above the resident on 26 April 2022. However, it cancelled this appointment because it did not receive confirmation that all the residents would be available.
  11. On 17 August 2022, the resident told the landlord that the leak had started again during heavy rainfall. She sent a video of the water entering the property.
  12. On 19 August 2022, the landlord told the resident that a contractor would erect scaffolding to carry out the dye test from the roof and it would use a camera to investigate the drainage system. However, on 26 August 2022 it said that it was no longer going to complete this because it did “not own the roof”.
  13. On 5 September 2022, the resident reported that the leak had returned. The next day she told the landlord that there was a risk of her ceiling falling in and she was worried what she would find when she returned from work.
  14. In the meantime, the landlord was still checking the plumbing of the properties above. However, there were further issues with accessing all the properties. It eventually completed all the inspections on 10 October 2022 and found no leaks caused by the plumbing in the properties above. During this time, the resident chased the landlord for updates.
  15. A contractor attended the property on 27 October 2022 to carry out a leak detection survey. The landlord told the resident that the specialist concluded that the leak was caused by the channel drains on the walkway above the property. However, it did not agree with this because it had already tested the drains and found that nothing leaked into the property. It said that it would therefore pass the issue to another department to deal with as it was not a repairs issue.
  16. The landlord’s surveying team took over and a different surveyor asked to inspect the properties on 12 December 2022. The resident chased the outcome of the visit 9 times. On 3 February 2023 the landlord told her that it had passed the issue to its latent defects team to check what warranties were in place.
  17. The resident contacted this Service for assistance on 6 February 2023. On 13 March 2023 we contacted the landlord to complain on the resident’s behalf. It acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 14 March 2023.
  18. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 13 April 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience and upset that the longstanding issue had caused. It said that the freeholder was responsible for the maintenance of the external areas of the building and that in its view the channel drains on the walkways were not fit for purpose. It said this should have been resolved by the owner of the building as a latent defect. It said that although it could not carry out a costly re-design as this was the owner’s responsibility it would repair the “smaller ingress areas” to prevent further water penetration. It said that it could have pursued the matter more rigorously with its landlords to try and achieve a solution. It offered £400 compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  19. The resident remained dissatisfied and asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 26 April 2023.
  20. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 27 June 2023. It said that:
    1. It attributed the cause of the leak to an original design defect of the building. However, it was not the freeholder and too much time had passed to re-open or investigate this with the developer.
    2. It had cleared debris from the floor tiles, drains, and down pipes from the walkway above. It had also formed some additional escape holes to allow any excess water that built up to run away and added some silicon.
    3. The freeholder had told it that they were planning to carry out major works which leaseholders would contribute to.
    4. As the resident was responsible for internal repairs, she would need to resolve the damp and mould within the property. However, it would consider refunding the resident the cost of carrying out a mould wash and the cost of redecorating the area damaged by the leak.
    5. The resident should claim for any damage caused by the leak via the freeholder’s building insurance with assistance from the landlord.
    6. There had been a lack of oversite and delays in its investigation of the leak, and it should have intervened and liaised with the freeholder “more intensely and sooner”.
    7. It offered £850 compensation: £250 for complaint handling failures and £600 for delays, poor communication, and the resident’s time and trouble.
  21. On 25 September 2023, the resident told the landlord that the leak had occurred 3 more times since it had completed the repairs detailed in the stage 2 complaint response. She said that the flat still had black mould and the carpets were damaged.
  22. On 8 January 2024, the landlord told the resident that it had arranged another property inspection. On 17 April 2024, the landlord emailed the resident and told her that her complaint had brought more focus to its plans to resolve the issue and that it would not close her complaint until a surveyor had reviewed each aspect of the job.
  23. A leak detection test using thermal imaging cameras and dye was carried out on 18 April 2024. This concluded that rainfall ingress was occurring in the channel drains and under the threshold of the flat above the property after major rainfall. The specialist recommended that the channel drains were lifted as well as some slabs near the front door of the property above to inspect the thresholds.
  24. In August 2024, a contractor cleared a blocked downpipe leading from the walkway above the resident’s property. The landlord advised the resident that this had resolved the leak. The landlord provided the resident with contact details for its insurance company to claim for internal repairs to the property. However, when the resident used the contact details given, she was told that she had been directed to the wrong department. The resident advised us that at the date of this report the internal repairs have not been completed and there has not been a major downpour to test the effectiveness of the latest repair.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advised us that she reported leaks between 2014 – 2020. The Ombudsman has not investigated the landlord’s handling of these reports. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
  2. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the events in the 12-month period prior to the formal complaint, and in particular, to the leaks reported from June 2021 onwards. The previous leaks have been referenced only to provide the background context to the resident’s complaint.
  3. Generally, the Ombudsman investigates issues and events up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response. This is because events that occurred after the date of the final response will not have been addressed via the landlord’s complaint process. However, in cases such as this, where actions promised via the complaint process remain outstanding following the final response, it is appropriate for the Ombudsman to consider events past the date of the final complaint response which are directly relevant to the issues raised in the complaint.
  4. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish liability or award damages. Therefore, we cannot determine whether the delays to rectify the leak have impacted the households’ health. However, we can consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health or loss of earnings is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.

Leak

  1. Paragraph 5.3c of the lease between the resident and landlord says that the landlord will maintain, repair, redecorate, and renew the common parts and other parts which are its responsibility under the terms of the headlease. The building plan within the headlease shows that the landlord is responsible for maintenance of the walkway above the tenant’s property.
  2. The landlord initially correctly took responsibility for the maintenance of the walkway. It cleared the drains in 2020 and removed and replaced the channel drains in March 2021; however, the problem persisted. There is evidence that a surveyor attended on 15 September 2021 and that the landlord inspected the property again on 6 October 2021. However, it did not update the resident with the outcome of these inspections. She emailed it 6 times for an update before it said that it would carry out a water test. This lack of communication from the landlord cost the resident time and trouble. It failed to manage her expectations and failed to communicate that it was considering further actions. It is apparent from the tone of her emails that this caused her distress and inconvenience because she was living in a damaged property and did not know when the next leak would occur.
  3. The landlord carried out a water test at the end of November 2021 by using a hosepipe to run water onto the walkway above the property for 30 minutes. This was inconclusive. Considering that the resident had advised it that the leak only occurred when there was torrential rain it was important that any test carried out was sufficiently thorough. The landlord should have therefore considered if other tests were necessary and closely monitored the leak when torrential rain occurred in future. Its failure to do so was a missed opportunity that led to further delays, causing the resident further distress and inconvenience.
  4. The landlord then told the resident that it thought the leak must be due to a fault with the roof which the freeholder of the building would need to inspect. There had already been a delay of almost 6 months in arranging the water test and inspection of the roof took a further 4 months. It would have been good practice to involve the freeholder earlier in the process to avoid some of this delay. Its failure to do so without any reasonable explanation caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
  5. In an email dated 6 December 2021, the resident pointed out that the roof had been repaired the previous year and the leak had been apparent before and after this. Therefore, she thought that the leak was unlikely to be due to a problem with the roof. However, the landlord did not respond to this email and the resident sent a further 13 emails chasing the outcome until it finally informed her on 20 April 2022 that the roof was not the cause of the leak. This cost her further time and trouble chasing an update.
  6. In the meantime, in March 2022, the landlord said that it had been checking the plumbing in the flats above the resident’s property. However, it did not log a repair job for this work until 7 April 2022. Given that the earlier investigations had not found the cause of the issue and the level of distress expressed by the resident it is unclear why this took so long to log. This unnecessary further delay added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  7. Due to access issues, it took a further 6 months for a contractor to check all the flats above. No faults were found. The resident and her neighbours had all told the landlord that the issue occurred only when there was torrential rain. During this time there was another heavy rainstorm that caused further damage to the property. While it may have been valuable to check the plumbing above as an extra precaution, given the reports received by the landlord relating to rain, it should have carried this work out alongside the other investigations to avoid further delays. However, it did not, and this lengthy delay caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. This also cost the resident further time and trouble chasing updates and trying to assist the landlord with access to the flats above.
  8. Where a landlord’s inspections have been inconclusive, the Ombudsman would expect it to consider an escalated inspection. After the contractor checked all the plumbing in the flats above, the landlord commissioned a leak detection investigation. While it was appropriate that it escalated its inspection to involve a specialist, this was only carried out 16 months after the resident had reported that clearing and re-fitting the existing channel drains had not resolved the issue. Throughout this period, the resident continued to be impacted by the leaks and as noted above, the landlord missed the opportunity to take this step within a reasonable timeframe.
  9. The report concluded that the problem was caused by inadequate drainage of rainwater. It said that the channel drains on the walkway above the property were filled with debris but were also not deep enough for the water they needed to disperse. It said that in heavy rain the water was not draining and was therefore entering the building and tracking to the properties below causing damage. The report recommended that a building surveyor should survey the drainage with a suggestion of the use of plastic guttering to bypass the gullies to eliminate the possibility of rain going into the flats.
  10. However, the landlord did not act on this recommendation, and it told the resident that the repairs team had done all they could. It said that it had already tested the channel drains in a water test and found that water did not enter the property. However, it did not fully explain why it was not following the expert’s recommendations and it is unclear why these did not trigger the landlord to consider whether the test it had carried out was effective. The repairs team then passed the issue to the homeownership team.
  11. The surveying team then took over and carried out another inspection on 12 December 2022. Again, the resident chased the outcome of this 9 times, costing her further time and trouble, before the landlord told her in February 2023 that it thought that the issue was caused by a design defect with the drainage. This further 2 month delay, with a lack of explanation demonstrated a lack of urgency and a failure to prioritise the issue. It then told her that it would pass the issue to its latent defects team to check what warranties were in place.
  12. Landlords will have specialist teams that deal with various aspects of the business. However, they must ensure that these teams do not work in silos and that there is collaboration and co-ordination in managing cases that span across specialisms. It is also essential that there is awareness of responsibilities across the wider organisation to ensure that it routes cases to the correct teams.
  13. It is apparent from an email sent by the resident dated 29 November 2022, that the transfer of the issue between departments caused her frustration. She said that there was a lack of communication and that new contractors seemed unaware of the history of the case. There was a lack of consistency from the landlord in who dealt with the leak as it passed the issue through several teams. There is evidence of a lack of full handover with each new team carrying out similar inspections and often coming to the same conclusion after several more months had passed. This lack of oversight caused a great deal of frustration to the resident causing her distress. It also contributed to the delays.
  14. On 28 March 2023, the landlord told the resident that it would carry out the required repairs to the walkway above to prevent flooding during heavy rainfall. It said it was waiting for a surveyor to finalise the scope of works required and that it would then instruct a contractor to carry these out. It also asked her to obtain quotations for remediation work within the property. The resident provided these as requested, with the average of the 3 estimates being £2,450. This email raised the resident’s expectations that the landlord would resolve the issue.
  15. However, in the stage 1 complaint response of 13 April 2023, the landlord said that the freeholder was responsible for the remediation of the channel drains and walkways and therefore it was unable to do the necessary work to remedy the design defect. It could not assist with the repairs within the property either. However, it said it would conduct minor repairs to the walkways. This seemed at odds with the email of 28 March 2023 and is further evidence that the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations. This change in stance caused disappointment and considerable further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  16. Once the landlord decided that it was not responsible for remedying the design fault it should have advised the resident how it would liaise with the freeholder on her behalf, or provided timeframes within which it would update her further. However, it did not. This was a major failing that meant that the resident would either need to deal with this herself or live with a leak in the property. This failing caused her further distress and inconvenience.
  17. Despite the landlord informing the resident that a design defect was the cause of the leak it has since carried out further repairs. In August 2024, it told the resident that it had resolved the cause of the ongoing leak by clearing a downpipe. However, according to the stage 2 complaint response the landlord cleared the downpipes previously as part of the repair work carried out in August 2023. Taking this into account together with the fact that the recommendations in 2 leak detection reports have not been followed and that there has not been a major downpour since August 2024, this fix has not been tested yet and there is some doubt that the root cause of the leak has been addressed.
  18. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that mould develops in damp conditions and grows on damp surfaces. It says that mould can produce allergens and irritants that can cause health problems. It says “we take into account the effect that damp, mould, and condensation have on residents and prioritise work to tackle this”.
  19. The landlord failed to follow this policy and prioritise the rectification of the cause of damp and mould in the resident’s property. It also failed to update its records regarding any vulnerabilities within the household that might be exacerbated by the presence of damp and mould and therefore did not adjust its service delivery accordingly.
  20. In summary there were long delays caused by the landlord’s failure to recognise that a different approach to the detection of the leak might be required at an earlier stage and its failure to act on the recommendations of the leak detection specialists when surveys were carried out. There was also a lack of liaison with the freeholder to assist the resident and poor communication including a failure to respond to numerous emails. The landlord also failed to manage the residents’ expectations and give explanations for its actions. There was also a lack of oversight by an individual or department that resulted in frustration and a failure to put things right. Due to the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by these failings there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
  21. The landlord acknowledged that there had been delays, poor communication, and that the resident had taken time and trouble pursuing the matter which caused her inconvenience. It offered £600 compensation to reflect this. However, this was not proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble experienced by the resident caused by the multiple failings identified above. She has lived with the leak which has caused damp and mould in the property for many years, and she informed this Service that this had a detrimental impact on her and her partner. Therefore, an order for the landlord to pay a total of £1,800 has been made, broken down as £1,000 for the considerable time and trouble taken in chasing the issue and £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  22. Given that the leak has previously returned following the landlord’s tests, and that the most recent repairs have gone untested, the landlord is ordered to arrange for a building surveyor not already involved in the case to undertake a review of all previous leak detection survey reports, including the videos provided as part of the report dated 4 March 2024, and provide written recommendations to resolve the leak. If the surveyor decides that the landlord should not follow the recommendations within the leak detection reports, they should give full reasons for this decision, which must be shared with the resident.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time said that it defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, our employees or those acting on our behalf.” This is the same definition used the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident made a formal complaint on 17 November 2021. However, despite the resident submitting this via a complaint webform which clearly asks what the complaint relates to, the landlord did not log or respond to this contact as a complaint. This failure to follow its own policy and the Code meant that it did not investigate the issue and use its complaints process to find a resolution at an earlier stage. This unreasonably prolonged the complaints process. It cost the resident time and trouble because she continued to contact the landlord and ultimately had to approach this Service for help to log a complaint. It delayed the resident’s access to an investigation by this Service.
  3. The landlord’s complaint policy also said that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days unless and extension was agreed with the resident. This was also in line with the Code.
  4. However, the landlord took 22 working days to respond to the stage 1 complaint and 42 working days to respond to the stage 2 complaint. It did not agree an extension with the resident. This further delay and failure to follow the Code meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution which caused her further distress and inconvenience. It also further delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
  5. The landlord offered £250 to reflect the delays and poor communication in its complaint handling. However, this did not take into account its failure to respond to the resident’s initial complaint at all. Therefore, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this offer has been replaced with an order to pay £300 compensation.
  6. Due to the landlord’s failure to respond to the original complaint, and the delays in responding at stage 1 and stage 2, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Record keeping

  1. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide all email correspondence regarding the resident’s reports of the leak. The landlord provided some email correspondence; however, this correspondence did not include any emails prior to January 2023 and mainly concerned the actions it took after the date of the stage 2 complaint response.
  2. The resident provided copies of over 150 emails between her and the landlord sent between October 2021 and April 2023. These included confirmation of its receipt of her original complaint in November 2021. It is not evident why the landlord did not have records of these communications. Without these, the full extent of the landlord’s failure to respond to emails from the resident would not have been apparent and it would not have been possible to carry out a full investigation of the case.
  3. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of correspondence and action taken. Good record keeping is vital to evidence that a landlord has taken appropriate steps and given appropriate advice. Failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents.
  4. As detailed above, the landlord’s failure to keep accurate records of the communications throughout the period of the complaint amounted to maladministration in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Complaint handling.
    2. Record keeping.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £2,100, comprising:
    1. £1,800 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the failures in its handling of the leak.
    2. £300 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £850. This amount must be paid within 6 weeks of the date of this determination.
  3. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must write to the resident and include the following:
    1. Apologise. A senior member of staff to apologise in writing for the failings identified in this investigation.
    2. Ask about any vulnerabilities in the household. Ensure that it updates all its systems to reflect these.
  4. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A building surveyor not already involved in the case must undertake a review of all previous leak detection survey reports, including the videos provided as part of the report dated 4 March 2024, and provide written recommendations to resolve the leak. If the surveyor decides that the landlord should not follow the recommendations within the leak detection reports, they should give full reasons for this decision.
    2. The landlord must provide its position in writing to the resident within 2 weeks of receiving its surveyor’s report. This must include copies of all the leak detection survey reports and any recommendations the surveyor reviewing these has made. It must detail any actions it will take, either to undertake any recommended work itself or how it will progress any work with the freeholder. This should include an action plan with timescales regarding when it will complete any required actions. If it decides not to take the advice in the recommendations of the surveyor, it should give full reasons for this decision.
    3. Commit to updating the resident, in writing, on the insurance claim process within 2 weeks of the leak being resolved. At this time, it should provide a named contact who must fully support the resident to make a claim to rectify the damage within the property. If the insurance claim is not successful, the landlord should reiterate its offer of the 18 November 2021, to make good the bowed ceiling, and its offer within the stage 2 complaint response to reimburse the resident for a mould wash and redecoration of the area.
    4. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, a senior member of staff must carry out a review of this case to identify the cause of the record keeping and complaint handling failures. It should provide a report regarding these to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of the date of this report.
  5. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.