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

Peabody Trust (202234334)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234334

Peabody Trust

19 August 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:
    1. Handling of repairs to an ongoing leak and associated roof repairs.
    2. Handling of reports of damp and mould.
    3. Complaint handling.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of a 2-bedroom property. The landlord is not the freeholder of the building.
  2. The resident has told the Ombudsman he has been reporting concerns with a leaking roof since 2018. On 2 April 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the issues were considered as a latent defect, and that this had been raised with the managing agent and a contractor. On 23 August 2020 a contractor came and cut 3 investigative holes in the resident’s ceiling.
  3. A complaint from the resident was noted on 31 July 2021. The resident advised that 3 identical surveys had been done on the building and that the costs for this were passed on to residents. He was also concerned he would be expected to pay for the roof repairs. The resident complained again on 2 February 2022 and advised about his concerns regarding the roof. The resident emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer on 19 May 2022 regarding his concerns to the leaking roof. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 June 2022.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 July 2023, following a request from the Housing Ombudsman. It advised that a leaking roof would not automatically be a latent defect and that an inspection to understand the cause would be needed first. The landlord acknowledged that the home should not have been in disrepair for so long but advised it could not comment further. It stated there was an open National Housing Building Council (NHBC) investigation, and it would respond to the resident further once this was complete.
  5. On 1 August 2023, the NHBC confirmed a claim for a latent defect had been accepted.
  6. Following a request from the Housing Ombudsman the landlord responded at stage 2 on the 18 October 2023. The landlord stated that roof repairs were completed in 2020 and 2021. It stated that the resident next raised concerns in April 2022 with the landlord’s latent defects team. The landlord advised that it was only recently aware of the cause of the leak, following the managing agent’s building consultant report. This report was sent to the NHBC for a claim to be made. It confirmed that the claim had been accepted. It advised the managing agent would contact the resident further regarding the works. The landlord offered £250 for complaints handling and £420 for distress and inconvenience.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the stage 2 outcome. He stated the works have not been completed and he remains concerned that the costs for the repairs may be passed on to residents. He has also advised that the damp and mould in his property is significantly worse than what it would have been if the matter had been resolved earlier. He is unhappy with the way the complaint has been handled. 

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. Paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman would not usually consider matters which “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”. This means the Ombudsman does not usually consider events more than 12 months prior to the stage 1 complaint being acknowledged. However, the Ombudsman considers that the resident first complained about issues with the leaking roof on 31 July 2021. He continued to raise his concerns and in June 2023 he approached the Ombudsman, which resulted in the stage 1 response being issued. As the resident did attempt to raise complaints without response, the Ombudsman has considered events dating back to 31 July 2020, which is 12 months prior to the resident’s first complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident raised concerns prior to 31 July 2020. This information is for context and will not be assessed in this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to an ongoing leak and associated roof repairs.

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 August 2020 to advise that the wet weather had resulted in the leak spreading, and raised concerns that this was causing more damage. The landlord should have considered the resident’s email and responded. The Ombudsman understands that fixing the roof was not the landlord’s responsibility as it was that of the freeholder.
  2. However, given that the resident was a shared owner with the landlord, it should have been considering what actions it could take to support the resident. This may have been to liaise with the freeholder and their managing agent, or to provide advice. There is no evidence the landlord took this action. Although there is no evidence, the Ombudsman notes that the email we have seen was provided by the resident and not the landlord. This may mean there was correspondence that has not been provided to the Ombudsman. This will be addressed in the record keeping section.
  3. On the 7 April 2021 the resident was sent an email from the landlord stating that a contractor had missed an appointment. It stated that it was obtaining a full breakdown of costs and repairs in relation to inspections and surveys of the roof. The Ombudsman notes again that this email was provided to us by the resident and was not in the landlord’s supplied evidence. The resident stated that he never received a breakdown of costs. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord provided an update on repairs at this time.
  4. On 14 April 2021 and 16 July 2021, the resident requested that the surveyor that was due to visit, attended with an abseil team, as surveyors had previously said they could not access the roof without them. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence from the landlord regarding a surveyor’s appointment at this time. However, the landlord should have been ensuring that it sent the right teams with the right equipment to complete any inspections. It would have been best practice for the landlord to reassure the resident that it was taking the correct actions to look into the concerns with the roof.
  5. On 31 July 2021 the resident raised a complaint in which he raised several concerns. There is no evidence the landlord responded at this time. On 2 February 2022 the resident complained again regarding issues with the roof. The resident advised that communication had broken down.
  6. The resident sent another email on 30 March 2022 stating that he was disappointed by the length of time the matter had been ongoing. The resident has advised this was in response to surveyors confirming a faulty installation with the roof. The Ombudsman considers based on these emails that there was likely some communication from the landlord to the resident, but we have not seen evidence of this. As such we are unable to comment on whether this communication was sufficient in addressing the resident’s concerns. We also consider, based on the resident’s increasing frustration, it is unlikely that the landlord was providing adequate responses.
  7. The landlord contacted the resident on 11 April 2022 to ask when the NHBC could attend to complete an inspection. The resident advised he would make himself available provided some notice was given. In the email the landlord asked when the issue had been first reported. It is of concern, given the extensive evidence the resident has provided, that the landlord did not have a clear history of the issues reported.
  8. On 4 May 2022 the resident asked for an update on the NHBC claim. He stated that the claim had been opened and closed previously due to inactivity. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this. However, we consider it concerning that the resident had been reporting issues with his roof since at least 2020, and there was little progress until 2022. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that supports why there was such a substantial delay.
  9. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 May 2022. This appears to be in response to a meeting the landlord held at the resident’s building. This email is from the resident’s evidence and is not in the landlord’s evidence. The Ombudsman considers it positive that the landlord conducted a meeting, however we cannot comment on the outcome of this, due to the lack of evidence. The resident also raised concerns about investigation holes which had been put in his ceiling during an inspection in 2020.
  10. The resident wrote to the Chief Executive Officer of the landlord on 19 May 2022. He raised multiple concerns, including those outlined in this investigation. The landlord responded to the resident on 22 June 2022 to confirm that it had received a complaint. It advised it would look into the ceiling holes the resident had reported. There is no evidence that the landlord took further action in relation to this.
  11. The email advised that a further inspection had been done by NHBC on 15 June 2022, and the landlord would update the resident on the outcome of this. There is no evidence that the landlord provided an update on this visit, despite the resident chasing again on 19 July 2022 and 13 September 2022. The resident sent a further email on 29 November 2022 expressing his disappointment in the lack of communication and stating that the damage would have been less severe if action had been taken sooner. It is understandable that the resident was becoming increasingly frustrated with the apparent lack of communication.
  12. On 30 November 2022 the landlord advised the NHBC had rejected the claim as it did not exceed the excess amount. The landlord stated that the matter was with the managing agent to decide on the best way forward and that it would update the resident once it knew more. The resident responded to request the report and advised that the NHBC had advised that the managing agent had been unresponsive. The resident asked that they were not relied on in the future. The Ombudsman considers that the managing agent was a responsible party, and that the landlord would not have been able to stop working with them. However, the landlord should have considered the resident’s concerns and ensured it took all actions to escalate the matter and get a response for the resident. There is no evidence to support that the landlord was proactively chasing the managing agent at this time, or that it was engaging with the resident.
  13. The resident reported concerns with the roof and requested an update on 4 occasions between the 9 December 2022 and 28 June 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord was taking any action during this time. This is concerning given that the resident’s roof remained in a state of disrepair and that damage was continuing.
  14. The landlord’s stage 1 response advised there was an NHBC investigation open. On 1 August 2023, the NHBC claim was accepted for the roof works and water ingress into the property. On 8 August 2023, the managing agent advised the landlord it would provide the resident updates, if contact details were provided. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord provided contact details to the managing agent.
  15. The landlord contacted the resident on 23 October 2023. It suggested some works had been done to repair the roof but that these had been unsuccessful. The landlord was unable to provide dates for these works as it did not have records. The Ombudsman appreciates that the works were likely arranged by the managing agent, however we are concerned that the landlord did not have a record of when the works took place. This would not have provided any reassurance to the resident regarding actions the landlord had taken. It further stated that the NHBC claim did not match the quote for the works. It stated that further quotes would be sought, and the managing agent would challenge the NHBC claim.
  16. The Ombudsman has seen an internal email dated 16 October 2023. This was in preparation for the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord acknowledged ongoing leaks but stated that it was not responsible for the construction of the building, or the leaks. It stated it notified the developer who did not take action. It also stated that the resident could have raised an NHBC claim like the landlord did. It also advised that had it not made the NHBC claim, then all costs would have been passed on to the residents of the building. While the Ombudsman does not dispute this, it is concerning that the landlord did not acknowledge its own failings in this email. The landlord had a responsibility to the resident, and it had a vested interest in the property as it was a shared owner.
  17. The landlord’s complaint response stated that the leak would have been straightforward to resolve but that there was a lack of co-ordination. It stated that it was “putting forward an action plan to resolve latent defect report especially where Peabody does not manage the building but it is been managed by a managing agent”. The Ombudsman notes that whilst it is encouraging that the landlord acknowledged a failing and considered actions it could take to improve matters, this sentence does not provide clarity as to whether this was for the resident’s current situation, or for all cases that might be impacted in the future. It was important for the landlord to ensure it provided assurance to the resident on how his repair would be managed in the future.
  18. The landlord offered £420 for time, trouble, and inconvenience. Whilst it is positive that the landlord made an offer of compensation, it is concerning that the landlord did not recognise the numerous failings identified in this report. In making our determination, we have considered the fact that the landlord was not responsible for carrying out the works, and that it was unable to control the actions of the developers, managing agent, or NHBC.
  19. However, there were substantial failings in communication with the resident throughout the time the repairs have been ongoing. There is also no evidence to support that the landlord treated the repair with any sense of urgency, despite it being a roof leak. It is unreasonable that the resident has been left with a leaking roof for at least 4 years and the Ombudsman would expect to see considerable efforts from the landlord to support the resident in getting this resolved. It has failed to do this or acknowledge these failures in its complaint response. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to an ongoing leak and associated roof repairs.
  20. The Ombudsman is aware that there are ongoing issues with the repairs. The NHBC claim has now been increased to cover the works, however, there have been delays in getting these completed. We are conscious that some of these delays have been due to the managing agent. It is also encouraging to see that there has been an increase of activity from the landlord in engaging with the managing agent. The Ombudsman recognises that some of the delay has been due to a £10,000 excess fee which has now been agreed to be paid by the freeholder. Whilst the progress is encouraging, the Ombudsman still considers this to be slow and that the resident has remained without a resolution to his leaking roof for a significant amount of time. The Ombudsman has also seen a number of emails from the resident to the landlord, that express frustration at the lack of communication and updates.
  21. The Ombudsman cannot make any orders on completing the repairs as these are the responsibility of the managing agent and the freeholder. The orders will be focussed on what actions the landlord can take to support the resident, by liaising with the managing agent and keeping the resident informed.
  22. The Ombudsman has also considered the compensation offered at stage 2 in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. We consider that the impact of the landlord’s inaction has likely had a significant impact on the resident. Due to this, and the time the matter has been ongoing, we consider that it is appropriate to award compensation in the scale for maladministration in accordance with our remedies guidance. Therefore, the landlord is to compensate the resident £800 for the delays in responding to the repairs, and the delays in the landlord taking meaningful action to ensure a resolution was reached.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould.

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 February 2022 and mentioned that the residents of the building had been living with damp and mould for years. The email came from the resident’s email address however it was signed from all residents of the building. As such the Ombudsman cannot confirm specifically what the damp concerns were for this resident. However, we recognise that due to the leaking roof, it would be likely that the resident was living with damp.
  2. As noted previously, the landlord was not responsible for the roof leaks. However, it should have shown curiosity on receiving reports of damp and considered if there were any actions it could take to help the resident, or if there was any advice that it could provide the resident. There is no evidence the landlord did this. The resident also emailed on 9 May 2022 stating that there had been damp in his home for 4 years.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 September 2022 to advise there were large patches of peeling damp. On 19 November 2022 he emailed raising concerns that there would have been less damage to his property if the matter had been dealt with sooner. Whilst this email did not specifically mention damp, the Ombudsman considers that it is likely there would have been damage from damp, due to the leak in the roof. Although there may have been limitations to what action the landlord could take, due to the repairs to the roof being the responsibility of the freeholder, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord could have visited the property to assess the damage. It may have been able to offer advice or support, and it may also have been able to use any evidence of damage, to escalate the roof repairs.
  4. The Ombudsman has not seen specific reports of mould for the resident’s property, although we recognise that the landlord responded to these concerns in its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman also considers that due to the level of damp, it is likely that some mould has occurred. The resident has concerns that he will have to pay for the repairs for any damp and mould damage in his property.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated “Our latent defect project manager will be writing to residents explaining the NHBC claim was accepted, the reason the claim was accepted and how much was awarded and that the managing agent’s plan on how the works would be carried out. Which will include any damage within the apartment will be covered caused as a result of the water ingress (excluding contents) however there would be £250 excess payable to Davies Group if the residents wish to claim on any damage within their home caused as a result of water excess”. The Ombudsman has seen the NHBC claim and notes that there are internal repairs within this noted for the resident’s flat. However, we are unable to confirm if this covers all damage. We consider that the landlord’s response regarding damage and what the resident may need to do to be able to claim, to be unclear.
  6. The Ombudsman recognises that any damp and mould issues are unlikely to be resolved until the leak is addressed. We also recognise that this in part, is beyond the landlord’s control. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord could have shown curiosity in the resident’s reports of damp and taken action to inspect it, although we acknowledge that as the resident is a shared owner, the landlord did not need to take this action. However, the landlord should have provided clear information to the resident on whether he would need an insurance claim or whether the NHBC payment would cover internal damage. As this was not provided, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
  7. The Ombudsman will order the landlord to provide the correct information to the resident. We have also considered a small compensation payment of £50 to be appropriate due to the confusing information given to the resident regarding the damage in his home.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident first raised a complaint on 31 July 2021. The complaint contained information regarding service charges which the Ombudsman understands the landlord has responded to under a different complaint reference, and that matter has now been resolved. However, in this complaint the resident also raised issues with the roof. The resident raised a number of further complaints regarding the leaking roof, until he eventually approached the Ombudsman.
  2. It was only after the Ombudsman contacted the landlord that it issued its stage 1 response. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to respond to multiple complaints and that the resident had to approach the Ombudsman for a response.
  3. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it was “sorry that your home has been left in a state of disrepair for so many years and that emergency repairs were not carried out. Off course, a resident’s home should not be left like this for so many years. This is not something however that I can comment on in detail”. It is unclear why the landlord was unable to comment in detail, when it had acknowledged that the property had been left in disrepair for an unacceptable amount of time. The landlord should have considered its actions to date and advised the resident what it would do in the future to support him. The landlord did state it would contact him once it had heard from the NHBC, however it would have been better practice to advise the resident what actions it would be taking in the future, to ensure these repairs were completed. The Ombudsman considers that the stage 1 response did not provide assurance or a suitable resolution for the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 20 September 2023 as the resident had advised he had escalated the complaint but had not had a response. The landlord should have responded to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. The Ombudsman has been unable to see when the resident escalated the complaint directly with the landlord. The landlord issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days of receiving notification of the request to escalate from the Housing Ombudsman.
  5. The stage 2 has a considerable amount of typing errors which make the response difficult to read. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord acknowledged areas it needed to improve on, although we are concerned that the landlord was not always clear how it was going to rectify these. The landlord’s complaint responses should be clear and should outline any resolution it is offering to its residents. The Ombudsman considers that the response to the complaint was poor.
  6. The landlord offered £250 compensation to the resident for the poor complaint handling, in its stage 2 response. Although it was positive that the landlord recognised some failures and offered compensation, the Ombudsman considers that the level of redress was not proportionate to the level of failure. Therefore, the landlord will be ordered to compensate an additional £100. The Ombudsman considers that the complaint handling has been poor and that it was unreasonable for the internal complaints process to take such a considerable time to complete. We also consider that the stage 2 complaint was poorly written. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  7. As the Ombudsman will not consider further financial redress for complaint handling, we have considered non-financial options to put the complaint right. Due to the poor complaint handling, we will order the landlord to provide an apology to the resident. The apology must be from a senior member of staff and must fully address the resident’s concerns. This must include reviewing the stage 2 response, and clarifying any paragraphs which are difficult to read.

The landlord’s record keeping.

  1. The Ombudsman has referenced throughout this report that much of the evidence provided has come from the resident. As this was extracts of evidence, the Ombudsman has at times been unable to fully assess the landlord’s actions. The Ombudsman considers that it is the landlord’s responsibility to provide all evidence it holds, and we confirm the landlord was given an opportunity to provide this, prior to this investigation.
  2. As it has been established that there is missing evidence, the Ombudsman considers there to be maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
  3. The Ombudsman is aware the landlord has recently been ordered on case number 202122259 to self-assess against the knowledge and information management report. The Ombudsman will not repeat this order therefore will not issue any orders for record keeping in this report.

Determination

  1. As per paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repairs to an ongoing leak and associated roof repairs.
    2. Complaint handling.
    3. Record keeping.
  2. As per paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is to issue an apology to the resident. This apology should be completed by a senior manager. It must address the failings identified in this report. This includes failure to proactively support the resident in getting the repair completed and poor communication. It should also include the complaint handling, in particular the failure to address the complaint sooner and the quality of the responses. The landlord must clarify any paragraphs in the stage 2 response which are difficult to read.
  2. The landlord is to pay £1,200 in compensation. This is inclusive of the £670 the landlord has already offered. This is broken down as:
    1. £800 for the landlord’s handling of repairs to an ongoing leak and associated roof repairs.
    2. £350 for its complaint handling
    3. £50 for the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
  3. The landlord is to appoint a senior member of staff to have oversight of these repairs. This member of staff should, in writing, confirm to the resident how often they will provide updates to the resident. They should also confirm what actions the landlord proposes to take if it is not receiving responses from necessary parties, and how it will escalate matters to ensure progress is being made.
  4. The landlord is to confirm if the NHBC claim will cover damp and mould damage related to the leak. If it does not, the landlord should advise the resident what his options are in relation to the damp and mould repairs, including advising of any insurance he may be able to claim on.
  5. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is aware that the roof leaks have affected other residents in the building block. When considering how and when it will update the resident who complained to the Ombudsman, it is recommended that the landlord also consider whether it needs to extend these updates to other affected residents.