Peabody Trust (202232974)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232974

Peabody Trust

29 November 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of leaks from the communal roof causing damp and mould to the interior of his flat.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The landlord is a housing association. At the time of these events, the resident was a leaseholder. The property was a 2-bedroom flat within a block of flats. There was a communal roof shared by several flats within the same block. The building was a new-build when the resident purchased the flat and was under warranty.
In November 2016, the resident reported a roof leak. The landlord conducted repairs to the roof which the resident believed were temporary, rather than a permanent fix, around late 2016 to early 2017. At the time, the resident requested a post-inspection. There is no record to show the landlord conducted a post-inspection at the time or followed up the resident’s request.
The resident made a formal complaint with the support of his local MP to the landlord in April 2019, to say the landlord did not offer a post-inspection to check if the roof leak had been resolved satisfactorily.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 7 May 2019, summarised as follows:
1. It apologised for its lack of communication and updates over the 2016/17 roof repairs, and for delays in providing a complaint response.
2. It would arrange a post-inspection on the roof and would notify the resident of its decision on whether any further works were needed.
3. It offered £100 to the resident in respect of the inconvenience caused by delays in confirming whether the leak had been fully repaired.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for a confirmation in June 2019. There is no record to show if the landlord carried out a post-inspection at the time, nor any record to show it confirmed the outcome with the resident.
In October 2019, the resident reported a drainage issue from the roof. The landlord arranged contractors to attend later in the same month to cut a hole into the membrane of the slabs on the roof to enable proper drainage.
The landlord stated that it did some follow-on roof repair works in February 2020, the nature of which is unclear from the records seen by the Ombudsman.
On 3 January 2023, the resident reported that his flat was experiencing damp issues similar to those he experienced in 2016. He explained to the landlord he believed those were recurring issues caused by the same roof leaks which were not fully resolved in 2016, expressing his dissatisfaction the landlord did not carry out a permanent fix back then. The resident’s neighbours on the same block raised similar reports about leaks from the roof around the same time.
The landlord’s contractors attended on 11 January 2023 to inspect the roof and confirmed that some areas were leaking which needed to be sealed. The resident asked the landlord to put him directly in touch with the contractors, which the landlord did. The resident also asked the landlord to highlight to the contractors that they should contact him in advance to make appointments, so he could be on site when they attended and speak to them.
The records showed the contractors attended again in early February 2023 without notifying the resident. The resident remained in frequent contact with the landlord to chase updates, and expressed his dissatisfaction about the lack of communication from the landlord’s contractors.
On 16 February 2023, the landlord assigned a new contractor to survey the roof. The new contractor inspected the roof again on 28 February 2023 and identified there were missing tiles in the roof, and that the flat surface of the roof was contributing to the water ingress.
The landlord updated the resident in early March 2023 with an explanation of the findings and to say it was chasing a quote for follow-on works. The contractor subsequently provided an initial quote for remedial work on 14 March 2023. The landlord updated the resident immediately afterwards. The resident emailed back to question the efficiency of the repeated inspections, and expressed his dissatisfaction about the delays in obtaining a quote to start the remedial work.
The landlord’s customer experience team called the resident on 16 March 2023 to explain that it asked a second contractor to take over the work, because it wanted to “get correct work done with value for money”. The resident remained unhappy with this explanation and stated in his email reply that the landlord could have resolved this in 2017 in a cost-effective manner while the building was under warranty.
The landlord kept in touch over the next month to provide updates on the progress of the inspections and quotations. It explained that it had found possible issues with the fascia and soffits which meant amendments to the initial quote were necessary. It also planned to lock the communal roof hatch to prevent people from accessing the roof to leave debris.
The amended quote was approved in late March 2023 and the landlord scheduled remedial works for 3 to 6 April 2023. The contractor attended on these dates as planned to apply dry-proofing, repair the holes in the roof and fit a lock. The contractor did not liaise with the resident before attending despite the resident requesting this previously.
On 6 April 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to say it had completed the roof repairs, attaching photographs.
The resident replied to the landlord on 11 April 2023 to say the roof section which was repaired (as shown in the photographs) was not the roof above his flat; it was a roof section in the same building but approximately 20 metres away from his flat. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated and for the landlord to provide a timeframe for fixing the roof, stating that his intention was to repair the inside of the flat affected by damp, and then to sell the flat.
The resident also reported blocked and overflowing guttering and a broken downpipe on 13 April 2023 and again asked for his complaint to be escalated. The landlord wrote to acknowledge his request for escalation on 14 April 2023.
The resident subsequently enquired why his complaint was not progressed to stage 2 of the process, as he believed he first complained in January 2023. The landlord emailed on 18 April 2023 to assure him it would escalate the complaint to stage 2 and the contractor would re-attend on 24 April 2023.
On 24 April 2023 the contractor called the resident before attending and carried out a damp survey using a geothermal camera. They also took photos of the mould on the wall and the dehumidifier in the flat (which the resident had purchased himself). They sent a report to the landlord shortly afterwards with a number of recommendations to “remove poorly fitted felt, supply torch on felt for capping stones, correct drainage fall on roof, and monoseal area of flat roof to seal all leaks”.
In May 2023, the resident reported to the landlord he had to discard his living room curtains which had become mouldy and smelly.
On 15 May 2023, the resident chased the landlord for a complaint response, as he had not received a response within 10 working days as per the landlord’s complaint policy.
The landlord’s customer experience team called the resident on 16 May 2023 to share the findings of the report and what further works were needed on the roof (the felt repair needed replacing and the roof needed to be sealed) over the phone call. They also shared a copy of the report via email and advised the resident that there had been a 2-week delay as they had not been able to get in touch with another affected resident (on a neighbouring property) to carry out further works, but they were progressing this as quickly as they could. They explained that they had not previously treated the resident’s complaint as a formally lodged complaint up to that point, but would do so. The resident told the landlord he had been complaining since January 2023 and he would like the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 as soon as possible.
The landlord issued a stage 1 written response on 17 May 2023, summarised as follows:
1. It set out the timeline of repairs from January to April 2023 and acknowledged there were delays.
2. It said it was chasing its contractors to conduct roof repair works on the resident’s property, as well as on several other neighbouring properties.
3. It said the resident had made a “service request” on 14 April 2023 and it had been progressing the service.
4. It apologised for the delays in dealing with the damp and mould issues, and further apologised for failing to get in touch with the resident within 10 working days to provide a complaint response.
5. It offered £150 to the resident in recognition of the trouble and inconvenience caused (£50 for poor complaint handling, and £100 for delays to resolve the repairs).
The landlord informed the resident in a separate email on the same day that there were a number of similar complaints of roof leaks and water ingress from several flats in the same block and it was trying to coordinate and ensure the proper works were carried out. It said the resident should try to claim contents insurance for any internal damage, however, if he did not have cover, he could submit an insurance liability claim to the landlord which would then be investigated by its insurance team. The landlord also sent a communal letter to residents in the building asking them not to leave rubbish and cigarette butts on the roof.
The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and asked the landlord to escalate this to stage 2. He stated that he believed the landlord did not take proper action to fix the communal roof in 2016/17, leading to recurring leaks in 2023. He highlighted that the continued leaks from the roof had caused damage to the interior of his flat, especially the walls and ceiling, and the landlord had not taken timely action to respond to the leaks in 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 May 2023 to say that due to a high number of escalation requests, it would not be able to provide a stage 2 response within the standard 15 days, and it would aim to reply by 14 June 2023. On 24 May 2023 it emailed again to say it would reply by 15 June.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 15 June 2023, summarised as follows:
1. It acknowledged that the resident had been complaining about the roof issues since 2016/17 and the landlord agreed to conduct a post-inspection in its stage 1 response of May 2019.
2. It acknowledged that the resident contacted the landlord in June 2019 requesting a definitive confirmation that there was no outstanding issue on the roof, but there was no record of the landlord providing this.
3. It explained that with respect to the 2023 leaks, it was able to get in touch with the other affected residents around 17 May 2023 to coordinate repairs to the communal roof.
4. It said the roof repair works were now scheduled to start on 26 June 2023 and would last for six days, and it was confident this would resolve the leaks.
5. It said it had treated the resident’s report of roof leaks in January 2023 as a service request, and the resident’s complaint was only logged as a formal complaint in April 2023 when he asked for an escalation. It said that given the lack of progress on arranging repairs at the time, it “would not have made a difference to the outcome” or “provided much value” for the landlord to issue a stage 1 response back then, however, the landlord did issue a stage 1 response on 17 May 2023.
6. It said once it acknowledged the resident’s complaint in April 2023, it took 13 days to issue a written response, which was outside of the complaints policy’s 10-day response timeframe. It acknowledged this was a service failure, however, it felt otherwise the quality of the complaint handling had been “consistently good”.
7. It had shared internal feedback to ensure all affected residents would be contacted when dealing with communal repairs and undergone structural changes and staff recruitment to its complaints team to help it respond to complaints more effectively.
8. It offered £800 in financial compensation (£600 for time, trouble and inconvenience with respect to the delays in repairs, £100 for delays in providing the stage 1 response, and £100 as a one-off discretionary compensation for the resident’s curtains).
9. It also offered to make good the damaged interior plasterwork once the external roof repairs had been completed, including £500 in compensation for the damage and two quotes for works on the affected walls and ceilings.

Events after the completion of the internal complaints process

In subsequent email exchanges, the resident stated the landlord did not provide adequate service nor promptly handled his complaint. The landlord acknowledged that there was little progress on the roof repairs until April 2023 and it did not contact the resident when the contractors attended for inspections, which, if this had been done, might have made a difference as the resident could have shown the contractors where the leaks over his flat were coming from.
On 27 June 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to say he was expecting the works to begin on 26 June 2023, however, he had seen nobody attend. The landlord replied that it would ask for an update from the contractors.
The contractors attended the property on 3 July 2023 and started to work on the roof repairs, without notifying the resident in advance. The resident was at home and was able to grant them access. The resident informed the landlord of the situation. The roof repair works were completed over the following several days.
On 12 July 2023, the landlord’s customer experience team wrote to the resident to say it had been in touch with the repairs team, and was waiting for a report from the contractor to confirm whether a post-inspection would be needed. The resident also emphasised in his responses that he would like a post-inspection given the history of this case (as there is no record to show a post-inspection was carried out in 2016/17 after the first occasion of roof repairs.) The landlord’s complaints handler wrote back to explain they understood the resident’s reasons for wanting a post-inspection and was chasing the repairs team in that regard.
The resident informed the landlord on 19 July 2023 that he was moving ahead with follow-on remedial works to the interior of his own apartment (replastering and repainting), as he wished to sell his flat as soon as possible. He had paid for the costs himself and made a claim on his own building insurance for these works.
The landlord made a payment to the resident for £500 around this time as it committed to reimbursing the resident for remedial works in its stage 2 response, bringing the total compensation to £1,300.
The resident and the landlord continued to correspond from 19 July to 8 August 2023 about the post-inspection, with the resident requesting this be carried out and the landlord informing the resident it was still waiting for this. Meanwhile the contractor submitted a report of the repairs on 2 August 2023.
On 11 August 2023, the landlord customer experience team emailed the resident to say the contractor had already been paid in full for the roof repairs and it would not carry out any further post-inspection.
The resident sold his flat in early October 2024 having completed the interior repairs.
The resident has stated to this Service that the outstanding issue for him was that the landlord’s compensation paid to him (£1,300 in total including compensation for interior damage) did not adequately reflect the impact of distress and inconvenience to him while the repairs were ongoing. He also referred to the costs of having to clean the damp and mould himself, and of purchasing and running a dehumidifier to manage the interior damp and condensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident complains that the roof had been leaking back in 2016/17 and the landlord was made aware of the issues back then, but did not conduct a post-inspection. He believes the leaks in 2023 were a repeat of the same issues in 2016/17. This was one of the points raised in his complaint in 2023.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s frustration and distress from these events. These episodes of leaks were 5 to 6 years apart. In the years in between, there were sporadic repairs done on the roof on a few occasions with some records of drainage being blocked and then resolved, which may or may not be related to the 2023 leaks. For these reasons, the Ombudsman cannot conclusively say that the 2016/17 leaks were linked or caused by the same structural failures in the roof as the 2023 leaks.
The resident made his first formal complaint around 2019 about the lack of a post-inspection in 2017. He received a stage 1 complaint response in May 2019, but did not escalate the complaint further at that time.
In its final complaint responses in 2023, the landlord has only addressed its own actions to resolve the leaks since January 2023, and has made no comment on whether the 2023 leaks were the same issues as the leaks in 2016/17. It has acknowledged that despite agreeing to do a post-inspection in May 2019 for works done back in 2017, there was no record that it did so, nor that it provided the resident with any confirmation at the time whether there were any outstanding issues with the roof after the 2017 repairs.
In these circumstances, this investigation will consider the 2016/17 leaks and the resident’s 2019 complaint as part of the relevant background to the current complaint, as they contributed to the resident’s current distress and frustration. However, the investigation will primarily focus on events starting from January 2023.
This investigation will consider events up to until August 2023. Although the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response in June 2023 and the internal complaints process ended by then, it had continued to carry out repairs and made compensation offers which are part of the commitments it made in its stage 2 response, which are directly relevant to the resident’s complaint.

Relevant policies and guidance

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the communal roof. The lease confirms this.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states for work that is complex in nature, requiring a specialist contractor or a technical lead in diagnosing and managing the works through to completion, it aims to complete the work in 60 calendar days (with an average target of 33 days).
The landlord’s damp and mould policy (which came into effect on 9 February 2023) states that it would take a proactive approach and investigate all reports of damp, mould and condensation in residents’ homes where it had responsibility to repair. It states it would monitor all of the work it carries out to tackle damp and mould issue for a year afterwards to ensure the issue had been resolved. It also states it would ensure each affected tenant or leaseholder had been contacted.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould (October 2021) highlights that landlords should take a proactive approach and ensure their responses to damp and mould reports are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords should identify complex cases which require specialist diagnoses as early as possible and take appropriate action. It also states that landlords should clearly and regularly communicate with residents on what actions it has taken, and its strategy for managing the damp and mould situation. Throughout the lifetime of the case including any post-inspections and post-repair monitoring, landlords should review what advice and support it can provide to residents on managing the damp and mould.
The landlord’s complaints policy (in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code) defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, the landlord’s employees or those acting on its behalf”. This excludes a first report of a repair, which it would treat as a service request.
The landlord’s complaints policy further provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, it should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and then respond to the complaint within 10 working days; at stage 2 (the final stage) it should respond within 20 working days. These timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which member landlords are expected to adhere to.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the communal roof causing damp and mould to the interior of his flat

Since 2017, the resident had been left uncertain as to whether there were still unfixed structural roof issues. The landlord first carried out repairs on the roof in 2017 after the resident reported leaks. As a response to the resident’s first complaint in May 2019, it agreed to carry out a post-inspection to these works done back in 2017 and share with the resident whether the roof repairs had been completed satisfactorily. However, there is no record to show the landlord did this. While there was no policy obligation on the landlord to carry out a post-inspection, it would have been good practice to do so, and it should have honoured its commitment to carry this out as part of its complaint resolution. The lack of communication caused the resident distress and contributed to his later concerns about how the leaks were responded to in 2023.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould (October 2021) is clear that once the resident reports damp and mould issues, the landlord should take timely action, especially in complex cases. For complex cases, early specialist intervention with a thorough investigation of the underlying causes of the damp and a detailed strategy for resolution would likely minimise the impact and lead to a better outcome.
The resident reported leaks from the roof in January 2023 causing damp to his flat, which he suspected were recurring from outstanding roof issues dating back from 2016. Other residents from multiple properties reported the same issues around the same time. Taking into consideration the history of the case and the fact that multiple residents were affected, the landlord should have recognised the complexity of this problem and investigated in a thorough manner to make sure all issues were identified, paving the way for a comprehensive strategy for resolution. It would have been appropriate to obtain a specialist report at this point but there is no evidence the landlord did so at the time.
The evidence shows that, while the landlord did arrange a roof inspection by 11 January 2023, it subsequently decided to change contractors and do a second round of inspections. The reason it gave to the resident was that it wanted to secure a solution that was good value for money.
After going through several variations of quotations, the contractor carried out some repairs on the communal roof in 6 April 2023. However, the records show that they missed repairs to the roof above the resident’s property. This indicates a lack of thoroughness in the roof inspection and repairs. There was a lack of comprehensive oversight in the landlord’s attempts to resolve the leaks.
The resident had asked the landlord to make an appointment before the contractor’s visit so that he could be present. If the landlord had done so, the resident might have had the leaks above his property fixed in April 2023, which could have mitigated some of the impact. Even if the contractors did not actively reach out to the resident on their own initiative, the landlord could have facilitated the communication of appointments. The lack of communication, as the landlord has itself acknowledged, led to the repairs being incomplete, and there was no full resolution to the problem, causing distress and frustration to the resident.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report is clear that the landlord has a duty to keep residents informed on its strategy for resolution of the damp and mould, and review what support it could provide to the residents. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to consider a leaseholders’ meeting or residents’ meeting to keep all affected residents informed. During the meeting, it could have shared its strategy and timeframe for resolution. For example, it could have considered dehumidifiers or reimbursement of costs for the energy costs of using dehumidifiers as a temporary measure, to mitigate impact to the residents while roof repairs went ahead. There is no evidence the landlord considered or discussed any of these possible mitigation measures.
The landlord subsequently arranged further inspections and repairs were concluded in July 2023. Although the landlord provided dates of repairs to the resident (week starting 26 June 2023) in its stage 2 response, the contractors did not attend on these dates, only visiting several days later on 3 July 2023. Again, the contractors did not communicate with the resident before attending. This indicated the landlord did not have sufficient oversight and was not fully informed on the contractor’s attendance, again leading to frustration and inconvenience for the resident.
On completion of repairs in July 2023, the landlord did not carry out a post-inspection to ensure the problem was fully resolved. This contradicts its own damp and mould policy, which states that the landlord would monitor damp and mould for a year after it carried out any repairs.
Given that the landlord previously gave reassurance to do a post-inspection in 2019 but did not reply when the resident asked for confirmation that the roof repairs had been completed, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to do a post-inspection at this point. Further, from January 2023 onwards, on some occasions the roof repairs were left incomplete. In this context, it would have been helpful for the landlord to respond positively to the resident’s request for a post-inspection in July 2023 as a way to reassure and mitigate the impact to the resident. The landlord missed an opportunity to do so which caused the resident upset and frustration.
In light of the scale of the leaks, it should also have kept checking in with the resident at regular intervals until after the next period of significant or prolonged rainfall to ensure the repairs were effective. This would also have mitigated some of the impact to the resident.
Overall, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord missed multiple opportunities to resolve the problem sooner; did not discuss temporary mitigation measures to manage the interior damp and condensation; did not communicate adequately with the resident and other affected residents in the building on its strategy; and failed to follow up properly to ensure the repairs were effective.
The resident was left in uncertainty about the condition of the roof from November 2016 till July 2023 despite raising complaints. He lived in near-constant damp conditions when the leaks occurred from January until July 2023. The landlord has offered £1,200 in total to the resident in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience these events since January 2023 have had on him (including compensation for the delay in repairs, interior damage, but not including the £100 for delayed complaint response).
While this goes some way towards redress, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has not taken into account the distress and inconvenience due to the contractors repeatedly attending but failing to complete repairs for the roof section above the resident’s flat; the costs of the resident having to clean up the mould himself without any support or advice for damp and mould management from the landlord; and the costs of purchasing and operating a dehumidifier.
Due to the reasons set out above, there is maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of roof leaks causing interior damp and mould.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident reported the roof leaks occurring in January 2023. The landlord treated this as a service request, rather than a complaint. Initially, this was in line with its complaints policy, which states that a first report of an issue should be treated as a service request, rather than a complaint. This is the case even though the resident stated the leaks were a repeat of the issues from 2016/17. Given that 5 to 6 years had passed since the first round of leaks, the Ombudsman cannot assume a direct link between these episodes of leaks. It was fair for the landlord to take this as a service request as of January 2023.
However, in February 2023, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction about the lack of meaningful progress and lack of communication on appointments. He further expressed dissatisfaction at continued delays when the landlord changed its contractors in February to March 2023 and carried out more inspections, questioning the purpose of repeat inspections. At this time, in line with the definition of a complaint under the Complaint Handling Code and the landlord’s own complaints policy, this should have been logged as a complaint as of February 2023. The landlord however did not do so until April 2023.
This approach to complaint handling would have caused time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident, as it signalled the landlord was downplaying his complaint instead of recognising it as such.
Some of the impact has been mitigated by the fact that the landlord was in close and frequent correspondence with the resident from February 2023 onwards and had shared the findings from its roof inspection in March 2023 with him as soon as they became available.
When the resident asked for an escalation to stage 2 on 18 April 2023, the landlord wrote back to say it would do this. Subsequently the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response and the resident was left in confusion as to why his complaint had not gone to stage 2. While it was appropriate that the landlord should progress the complaint through the two consecutive stages, and provide a stage 1 response at the time, it did not give a proper explanation to the resident and the information given was at times contradictory.
The landlord has offered the resident £100 for its delay in providing a stage 1 response, which goes some way towards mitigating the impact. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, while the financial compensation is adequate, the landlord should provide further remedy by apologising for its failings.
In light of the failing to recognise the resident’s complaint from January until April 2023, and the contradiction in information on the complaints process, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the communal roof causing damp and mould to the interior of his flat.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to provide a written apology to the resident to acknowledge the failings identified in this report, with regards to both the repairs handling and the complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to pay to the resident £500 (on top of the £1,300 it has previously offered) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in completing the roof repairs in a thorough manner, failing to communicate adequately on its strategy, failing to consider temporary damp mitigation measures, and lack of post-inspection and follow-up.