Peabody Trust (202232175)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232175

Peabody Trust

23 February 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a leak from a leaseholder property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord which began in May 2021. She is a sole tenant who occupies a 1 bedroom ground floor flat.
The resident reported a leak coming from the ceiling into the kitchen on 22 May 2021. She also informed the landlord the leak was running under the cooker and electrics. In response to this, the landlord visited the leaseholder property above the resident and identified the bathroom floor from the flat above as the source of the leak. The landlord advised the leaseholder a plumber was required to resolve the leak.
On 9 June 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that the kitchen light had been damaged by the leak. A works order was raised the following day for contractors to arrange an appointment and attend the property.
On 23 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and said the leak had been resolved.
However, on 4 September 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that the leak had returned and was affecting the kitchen and hallway ceiling. She explained that the water dripping was “dirty brown water” and the carpet had become “soaked” as a result. She also said that the leak had tripped the electric lights in the hallway, bathroom and kitchen as well as the fire alarms. The appliances in the kitchen were also wet due to the leak.
The landlord raised an emergency works order on 4 September 2021. The repair notes indicate the engineer made safe the light pendant and smoke detector in the hallway. It was also noted that follow on works were required for a day electrician to attend once the affected area had dried out. An additional works order was also raised on 6 September 2021 for contractors to attend and investigate the leak. The landlord’s notes suggest an independent plumber had been out to inspect the leaseholder’s property, however, there was no visible source of the leak. It was noted for the landlord to investigate, trace and remedy the leak “asap”.
On 9 September 2021, the resident called the landlord to report that the leak was “uncontainable”. She called again on 10 September 2021 to seek an update and stated that emergency works were not enough and the leak needed to be rectified as she was regularly having to take time off work due to the leak re-occurring so frequently.
The landlord was unable to gain access to the leaseholder’s property on 24 September 2022. A note was made for the day team to attend the property and either shut of the water or make the relevant repairs. Following this the landlord made contact with its leasehold team to inform them of the matter and request for the team to chase the leaseholder as the issue required to be resolved with urgency.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 October 2021 to request the lights in the hallway to be reconnected.
The evidence suggests the leak remained ongoing on 11 October 2021 and the leaseholder had been contacted to have a plumber attend urgently. The resident informed the landlord that an engineer did visit the leaseholder property and turned the water back on and the leak had not worsened following this. The landlord sent another email to the leaseholder with a request for an urgent repair to be carried out.
A further report was made by the resident on 21 October 2021 about the leak coming through the ceiling into the light fitting and smoke alarm once again. The landlord noted that the operative attended and noted the leak occurred when the shower in the flat above was used.
The landlord attended the resident’s property following a leak report on 4 November 2021 and observed that the ceiling was still leaking. The landlord attempted to access the leaseholder’s property, however, there was no answer. The resident reported the leak again on 4 November 2021 and informed the landlord that she had spoken with the leaseholder who stated they had a plumber investigate and a leak could not be identified.
On 22 November 2021 the landlord’s internal records indicate an electrical repair was raised to reinstate the light and smoke detector as the leak had been “resolved”.
The leak returned in February 2022, the resident made a report that water was coming through the light and smoke alarm. The resident reported the same issue again on 10 March 2022. On both occasions the landlord “made safe” the electrics being affected by the leak.
The resident first reported damp and mould in the property on 30 March 2022. She informed the landlord she had an appointment for a water meter to be installed when the contractor identified the backboard as being wet and mouldy. The landlord noted a mould and damp wash was required.
The resident further reported the strong smell of mould in their bedroom coming from the floor and walls on 16 August 2022. She explained that she had cleaned the mould from her mattress and bed base, however, the mould kept returning. The landlord noted this needed to be investigated and resolved. A visit was carried out on 12 September 2022 and it was identified that a clear external rainwater drain and downpipe was suspected to be causing damp and water retention in internal walls.
The resident called the landlord seeking an update on her reports of damp and mould on 3 October 2022. She was informed that no works were required following the contractor’s visit. The landlord’s internal email trails indicate that follow up works were not arranged as the photographs taken by the contractors did not show that any works were required and there were no visible damp patches in the photos. The landlord stated there was only one photo which showed “slightly bubble wrapped wallpaper”.
The resident continued to report damp and mould on 28 October 2022, she stated there was a very strong smell in the hallway and the rug in the bedroom was also damp.
On 11 November 2022, the leak from the leaseholder property above returned, the resident once again reported that the smoke detector was going off as a result of the leak.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 15 November 2022. She explained that there had been intermittent leaks at the property since she first moved in which had come through to the ceilings in the bathroom, hallway and kitchen causing a “considerable amount of damage”. The leaks had also impacted the fire alarm and gas alarm and the resident was frustrated with having to repeatedly report the same issues with no permanent solution to resolve the leak. As a resolution the resident wanted the landlord to resolve the leak and offer compensation for distress and inconvenience. The resident also requested for the landlord to investigate its handling of her damp and mould reports.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 November 2022 and informed the resident a response would be issued within 10 working days by 29 November 2022. The landlord provided an update to the resident on 24 November 2022 advising that a plumber was attending the leaseholders property to investigate the leak.
The landlord contacted the resident on 7 December 2022 to confirm whether the leaks had now stopped as works had been undertaken the week before. The resident confirmed the leak had stopped, however, the kitchen ceiling needed repainting and the fire alarm needed replacing. The landlord logged on its repair system that the smoke detector was broken and a new heat alarm was required in the kitchen following the leak. The landlord also emailed its contractors to request that the whole ceiling was to be repainted.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 7 December 2022. The landlord noted that the resident had reported the issue on 7 separate occasions between 11 August 2021 and 15 November 2022. The landlord intended to complete the outstanding repairs which were to replace the smoke alarm and paint the ceiling. The landlord reassured the resident it would continue to monitor progress with the repairs and the resident would have a single point of contact throughout. Once the outstanding works were completed, the landlord would calculate an appropriate amount of compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 13 December 2022 as the leak had returned. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 29 December 2022 and advised the resident a response would be issued within 20 working days by 26 January 2023. The landlord issued a stage 2 final response on 27 January 2023 and made the following points:
1. Following the resident’s initial reports of a leak, the landlord identified the source of the leak as the leaseholders property and therefore the leaseholder had responsibility to carry out the required repairs.
2. The landlord stated it took the appropriate steps to contact the leaseholder giving them reasonable timescales to complete the repair. However, when the leak re-occurred the landlord acknowledges that it should have been more decisive to ensure the repair held up.
3. The landlord acknowledged that the frequency of the leaks had undoubtedly caused time and trouble and the landlord apologised for this.
4. With regards to the damp and mould, the landlord stated it was first made aware of the issue in August 2022 and following this, damp and mould inspections were arranged on 2 occasions, however, no follow on works were booked as photos did not indicate they were required.
5. The landlord requested the resident clarified what remained outstanding with the damp and mould and it would arrange and monitor any required repairs.
6. The landlord apologised for the delay in offering compensation and offered the following amounts:
  1. £150 for time, trouble and inconvenience
  2. £100 for complaint handling
This service contacted both the resident and the landlord seeking an update on the current status of the leak. While the leak did return after the date of the final response, it has now been resolved.
The resident referred her complaint to this service on 4 April 2023. She explained that she remained dissatisfied with the stage 2 response due to the length of time the issue remained ongoing. The resident explained the impact the issue had had on her and the inconvenience suffered as a result. The resident was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered as she felt it did not reflect the distress and inconvenience suffered. She also stated that the damp and mould remained an ongoing issue and she was having to use a dehumidifier daily due to the strong smell in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident mentioned that the damp and mould at the property has impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding their health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, it is generally accepted that damp and mould can pose a significant risk to health. This service can consider the general risk as well as any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord and the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.
While evidence suggests there were further reports of a leak made after the date of the final response, this investigation will focus on the time period between 22 May 2021 when the first report was made and 27 January 2023 when the landlord’s stage 2 final response was issued. This service will not investigate the leaks reported following the date of the final response as the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord should be given the chance to respond to the leaks following the repair in line with its repairs policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from a leaseholder property

In accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes:
1. Drains, gutters and external pipes
2. Internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, door hinges and skirting boards but not including internal painting and decoration
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that non-urgent repairs are to be completed within 28 days with an average target of 10 working days. Programmed repair works which require additional time due to manufacture, complexity or specialist trade are to be completed within 60 calendar days with an average target of 33 days. This includes damp works. Emergency repairs are to be completed within 4 hours and made safe within 24 hours.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy also sets out that leaseholders are responsible for all internal repairs in their properties.
The resident reported the leak on 8 different occasions between 22 May 2021 and 11 November 2022. In response to the reports, the landlord visited the leaseholder’s property, chased the leaseholder to carry out the required repairs and raised emergency works for the resident’s property. In accordance with the landlord’s policy, the leaseholder was responsible for carrying out the necessary repairs to resolve the leak coming into the resident’s property. Once the landlord had identified the source of the leak as the leaseholder’s property, it was appropriate for it to visit the leaseholder’s property, inspect the property and ask them to carry out the necessary repairs.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response it should have been more “decisive” to ensure the repair that had been carried out held up. The landlord also acknowledged that the lack of monitoring by the repairs and leasehold team led to substantial delays overall. Following the initial report of the leak on 22 May 2021, although the landlord advised the leaseholder to get in touch with a plumber to carry out the repairs, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord was monitoring the repair to ensure completion in the period between 22 May 2021 to 23 June 2021 when the resident advised the leak had stopped. The landlord’s records do not specify whether the leaseholder had actually carried out any repairs in that time period or whether the leak just came to a natural stop. Without dealing with the root cause of the leak, it was inevitable that the leak could return under certain conditions. The landlord could have taken extra steps to satisfy itself that the leaseholder has addressed the issue, particularly once it had repeat reports.
In responsive repair cases where a leak is emanating from a leaseholder property it is vital for landlord’s to have clear lease provisions to gain swift access, force repairs or recharge for work they have carried out to rectify issues. Landlord’s must enact these provisions on a timely basis, particularly where issues are having a significant impact on other residents’ living conditions. Given that the resident repeatedly reported the leak and the damage caused by the leak, it was evident that the works and inspections being carried out by the leaseholder were not effectively resolving the leak. The landlord should have considered sending its own plumber to the leaseholder’s property to investigate and carry out the repairs and recharge the leaseholder for the cost of that repair if appropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken this action following 6 September 2021 when the leaseholder had informed the landlord that the leaseholder’s plumber had been unable to identify the source of the leak. This is because the resident continued to report the leak and the landlord had a responsibility under the tenancy agreement to further investigate and resolve the matter.
The landlord also had a responsibility to ensure the resident’s property was in an adequate state of repair and that it was making suitable enquiries within reasonable timeframes to resolve the issue. It would have been beneficial for the landlord to have given the leaseholder deadlines for the required repairs to be completed by. This would have helped the landlord to monitor the progress of the repair and progress the matter further with its leasehold team. Leaks from leaseholder properties are a common issue and the landlord should have policies regarding its approach to leaseholder leak issues to ensure that it is taking prompt action within reasonable timescales. It would also ensure that there was a clear escalation process in cases such as this where the repairs being carried out by the leaseholder were not successfully resolving the issue.
The hazard of a leak is increased where electrical supplies are affected, which was a risk present in this case. Between 22 May 2021 and 11 November 2022 the resident reported 8 incidents where the leak had impacted electrical supplies ranging from, the cooker, kitchen light, hallway lights, bathroom lights, fire alarms, kitchen appliances and smoke detector. While the landlord raised emergency repair orders and appropriately attended the property to “make safe” the electrics within 24 hours following each report, the resident had been left without adequate lighting in her property from 22 May 2021 until approximately 22 November 2021 when an electrical repair was raised to reinstate the light. Records indicate the resident also did not have a working smoke detector in the property between 4 September 2021 until approximately 22 November 2021. Following the re-occurrence of the leak in February 2022 and March 2022, both the light and smoke detector were impacted once again. The landlord should have considered offering temporary lights to the resident for the duration she was without adequate lighting in her property and while the leak remained ongoing. It was not reasonable for the resident to be left without a working smoke detector in the property, and this should have prompted the landlord to pursue the resolution of the leak with more urgency. The landlord could have also provided temporary battery powered alarms in the meantime.
The resident also mentioned that the leak which occurred on 4 September 2021 involved “dirty brown water” dripping into her property. It is understandable that this would be a cause for distress and raise concerns about hygiene. The landlord did not adequately address the impact of this on the resident in its complaint responses. Reoccurring leaks will have also inconvenienced the resident who had to repeatedly clean all the impacted areas and kitchen utensils.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from a leaseholder property. The lack of a clear policy led to delays in ensuring completion of a repair in the leaseholders property, which left the resident’s property in a state of disrepair for a significant period of time.
The landlord offered £150 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience in its stage 2 response.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses 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 did not take into account the full extent of the distress and inconvenience the ongoing leak would have caused to the resident. Overall, the resident experienced intermittent leaks in her property for a total of 19 months. The landlord failed to ensure that the leak was resolved within a reasonable period of time. Its failure to proactively manage the situation led to a protracted delay in the matter being fully resolved. The amount offered by the landlord does not reflect the full impact on the resident over an extended period, therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £600 compensation in addition to the £150 offered in its stage 2 response. This is in recognition of the failings identified in this report and has been calculated at approximately £40 for each month the repair was not fully resolved

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that damp works are considered programmed repair works and are to be completed within 60 calendar days, with an average target of 33 days.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or minimizing potential hazards. The landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
Following the resident’s first report of damp and mould on 30 March 2022, although the landlord noted a damp and mould wash was required, there is no evidence available to this service to indicate this was carried out. This was a service failure by the landlord. This Service recognises that the resident did not make contact with the landlord again about the damp and mould till 16 August 2022, however, a lack of adequate records makes it difficult to identify whether the landlord was monitoring the repair to ensure completion.
Following further reports on 16 August 2022 the landlord appropriately carried out an inspection on 12 September which identified an external drain and downpipe as a potential cause of the damp and water retention in the internal walls. However, there are no records of whether any follow on works were required or booked in following this. This was also a service failure by the landlord as it would have been reasonable to investigate this further.
The update provided to the resident suggests that following the inspection, the landlord did not think any works were required as there was no visible evidence of damp and mould. Following the resident’s reports of damp and mould, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out a damp inspection and this Service encourages landlords to share any findings with residents to ensure transparency. While the landlord states in its stage 2 response that damp and mould inspections were carried out on two occasions following the resident’s reports, copies of the inspection reports were not shared with this Service, so it is unclear what the findings were and whether any follow on works were required.
The resident has continued to report the ongoing presence of damp and mould at the property which indicates the issue remains unresolved. There was maladministration by the landlord and the landlord is ordered to pay £250 for the failures identified in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The compensation only accounts for the period of 30 March 2022 until 27 January 2023 when the final response was issued. The landlord is ordered to carry out a damp inspection report within 2 months and identify any required works. If works are required, a timetable detailing the schedule of works required should be provided to both the resident and this Service within 4 weeks of the damp inspection.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints procedure states that stage 1 complaints must be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt and a full response addressing all the issues raised would be issued within 10 working days.
Stage 2 escalation requests are to be acknowledged within 5 working days of receiving the request to escalate. A full stage 2 response is to be issued within 20 working days from the date of escalation.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that its stage 1 response lacked a detailed investigation and did not address all the points raised by the resident or offer a fair/proportionate remedy.
The landlord awarded £100 compensation in recognition of the identified failings. This was an appropriate offer of compensation. If this had not been offered the Ombudsman would have made a finding a of service failure or maladministration and ordered a similar amount to be paid to the resident. There was reasonable redress provided to the resident, i.e. the landlord made the situation right, in its handling of the resident’s complaint

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the residents reports of a leak from a leaseholder property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the residents reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord, in its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord shall take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £850 in addition to the £250 compensation offered, this is made up of the following:
  1. £600 for the failings identified in relation to the resident’s reports of a leak from a leaseholder property.
  2. £250 for the failings identified in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports.
3. Set out what steps the landlord will take in the event a leak re-occurs from the leaseholder property and provide this to the resident and this service.
The landlord shall take the following action within 2 months of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. The landlord is ordered to carry out a damp inspection within 2 months of the date of this report and provide a copy to this service.
2. If works are required following the damp inspection, a timetable detailing the schedule of works required should be provided to both the resident and this Service within 4 weeks of the damp inspection.