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

Peabody Trust (202302854)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302854

Peabody Trust

11 February 2025


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 response to the resident’s reports of having no heating or hot water between 8 January 2023 and 21 March 2023.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a one bedroom, third floor flat, within a block. The landlord is a housing association. The resident describes herself as vulnerable, has osteoarthritis, and other medical conditions which the landlord has recorded.
  2. In November 2022 the landlord became aware of a roof leak at the block and it erected scaffolding in December 2022 to assess the repairs it needed to do. The resident reported that her boiler was not producing heating or hot water on 8 January 2023. Its heating contractor attended and said a leak from above was affecting the boiler. The landlord raised a new repair for the roof and gutter leak on 12 January 2023. It attended out of hours on 14 January 2023 when the resident reported her emersion tank had also stopped working, but it could not repair it.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 January 2023 to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
    1. Not having had any heating since 8 January 2023 and not having had any hot water since 13 January 2023. She said the landlord had provided 2 electric heaters, but they did not heat the property and were expensive to use.
    2. Not being kept updated by the landlord about the repairs or knowing when her boiler would be fixed and that she had had to keep chasing it.
    3. The effect not having heating or hot water was having on her arthritis and health.
  4. The following day the landlord called and then emailed the resident. It said they had both agreed that the landlord would raise a ‘service recovery case’ rather than a complaint, “due to the response time being 10 working days for [a complaint] and the immediate issues present.” The same day the heating contractor attended again and confirmed a leak from above was affecting the boiler. On 25 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and said it was not going to use an abseiling company to carry out the repair. It gave a named contact for her service recovery case but gave a generic telephone number and email address to contact him. It also confirmed she could make a complaint at any time.
  5. On 27 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and asked to progress her complaint. She said there had been no urgency in restoring her heating and hot water. She also said it had not considered her wellbeing or offered alternative accommodation. The landlord acknowledged her email on 1 February 2023 but did not raise a complaint. It contacted her again and agreed to ‘decant’, or temporarily move her, initially for 2 weeks from that day. On 16 February 2023 the resident’s MP emailed the landlord and asked it to explain the delays in repairs and consider offering compensation to the resident. The same day its heating contractor unsuccessfully tried to attend without an appointment. The heating contractor tried to attend outside of its agreed appointment time on 20 February 2023. It attended the next day but said it needed to send a supervisor.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord enclosing a second complaint letter on 24 February 2023. She said 47 days had passed since she had a working boiler, and she had been decanted for 5 weeks. She set out the missed heating contractor appointments and the stress and inconvenience this caused her, as well has having to take time off work for appointments. She asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. Between 27 and 28 February 2023 the landlord confirmed it had repaired the roof and gutter, and the heating contractor said it had ordered the parts needed to repair the boiler. The resident also chased the landlord for a complaint response, and the landlord told her it had raised her stage 1 complaint on 28 February 2023. It responded to her MP’s enquiry on 6 March 2023 and said it had repaired the boiler on 1 March 2023.
  7. On 9 March 2023 the landlord told the resident the heating contractor was waiting for a part. She emailed it on 21 March 2023 to chase for her complaint response. The heating contractor repaired the boiler on that day and the resident returned to the property from her decant the following day. She chased the landlord on 12 April 2023 and 9 May 2023 for her complaint response. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 June 2023, in which it:
    1. Apologised for the delay in its response, and said the complaint “was not picked up and progressed” due to its recent merger.
    2. Accepted it service standards and communication had been poor. It said it had failed to follow its processes and apologised.
    3. Offered £600 compensation made up of:
      1. £400 for time, trouble, inconvenience, and additional electricity costs.
      2. £100 for delays in completing repairs.
      3. £100 for its complaint handling failings.
  8. The resident asked to escalate her complaint the same day, as she said it had not fully considered the impact its delays and lack of communication had had on her. The landlord acknowledged escalation on 26 June 2023, and the resident asked it to consider further points within its response. It provided its stage 2 response on 17 July 2023, in which it:
    1. Explained that it had not initially offered a decant as loss of heating and hot water was not a reason for it to offer one. However, it said it was aware of her vulnerability, and due to the complication of the roof leak, it should have used its discretion to offer one sooner and apologised that it had not.
    2. Accepted that it had not handled repairs for the roof leak correctly. It said it had raised a new repair in January 2023 to a different contractor, when it already had an open repair with another contractor, as it had not checked its records. It said this led to delays as different contractors cannot use each other’s scaffolding. It said it then cancelled the new repair, and the initial contractor repaired the roof.
    3. Accepted its complaint handling had been poor and that it had not followed its complaints procedure. It said it should have raised her stage 1 complaint on 23 January 2023, but instead it delayed and it apologised for this.
    4. Apologised that it had given incorrect information to the resident’s MP that her boiler had been repaired on 1 March 2023 and said it had not managed the repair properly.
    5. Offered £853 compensation, made up of:
      1. £450 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
      2. £88 for no heating and hot water, £45 for additional costs, and £20 for missed appointments.
      3. £250 for its complaint handling failings.
  9. The resident accepted the landlord’s compensation offer on 27 September 2023 and the landlord arranged payment.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of having no heating or hot water between 8 January 2023 and 21 March 2023

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure of the building, including the roof, and for maintaining installations for the supply of heating and hot water. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Under its repairs policy the landlord categorises repairs based on urgency and complexity and gives a timeframe for completion. It says roofing works which require scaffolding will be completed within 60 working days. This is also the timeframe for complex or specialist repairs. The policy does not give a category or timeframe for boiler repairs, or lack of heating and hot water repairs, nor does it refer to a separate policy covering these types of repairs.
  2. A roof leak was reported to the landlord on an unknown date in November 2022, which caused damage to the resident’s boiler and caused it to stop working from 8 January 2023. The landlord repaired the roof on 27 February 2023, which was outside of its 60 working day policy timeframe and a failing. Its delay in completing the repairs, caused in part by raising a new repair in error, extended the duration that the resident was without heating or hot water. The heating contractor could not repair the boiler until the roof had been repaired. The landlord’s heating contractor also caused delays by attending without, or outside of, appointments and delayed in ordering parts needed which were all failings. It took 72 working days for the landlord to repair the boiler which was more than its specialist or complex repairs timeframe.
  3. As part of her complaint, the resident asked why she had to wait 23 days, without heating or hot water, before being decanted considering the landlord was aware of her health conditions and vulnerability. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord explained it did not offer decants for loss of heating and hot water under its decant policy which is correct. The landlord’s decant policy says it will offer to decant when “the health and safety of the household would be at risk…should they remain in their home” or if repairs cannot be completed with the resident in situ. While the policy does not state that it allows for discretion, whether health and safety would be at risk is open to interpretation and may be different for each person based on their individual circumstances. Positively, after the resident asked, the landlord did decant her until it completed the repairs. It also accepted in its stage 2 response that it should have exercised discretion and offered a decant sooner.
  4. Within its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord accepted all its failings, recognised the inconvenience, time and trouble caused, and offered compensation of £603 within its stage 2 response. In relation to the failures identified, 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 takes into account 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, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  5. The landlord displayed the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. It accepted its failings and apologised for them. Its compensation offer was within its extensive disruption banding under its compensation policy. In addition, it followed its compensation policy daily amounts for loss of heating and hot water and missed appointments. It also offered compensation for the resident’s additional expenses. It was fair and there was reasonable redress. No orders or recommendations regarding compensation have been made as the landlord has already paid the compensation it offered to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. Under its complaints policy in use at the time, the landlord defines a complaint “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf”. This is in line with paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. Its policy says it will not treat as a complaint a request for service such as a first report of a repair. It also says some “follow-ups on service requests…most often…will be dealt with under a service recovery process”.
  2. While the landlord’s complaints policy, and the Code, say that a resident does not need to use the word ‘complaint’, the resident did when she emailed the landlord on 23 January 2023. The contents of her email were clearly a complaint under the definition used, and not a request for service or first report of a repair. The landlord failed to raise a complaint, and its reason regarding response times was illogical. Landlords must not prevent complaints being raised, or fail to raise them, based on the urgency of ongoing repairs. This approach prevents the resident from using the complaints process or escalating their complaints should repairs continued to be delayed. The Ombudsman’s position is that a response can normally be sent detailing the landlord’s assessment of the service provided so far and its proposed plan to put things right. Progress of this plan should still be monitored even if a complaint response has already been sent.
  3. The landlord failed to open a stage 1 complaint until 28 February 2023. Prior to this the resident had sent it a further complaint letter, chased a response, and asked it to escalate her complaint. In its initial emails to the resident the landlord said the resident could raise a complaint at any time, but it failed to fulfil this. It also gave a named contact for her case but failed to provide direct contact details. There was a significant failing but positively the landlord accepted it should have raised the stage 1 complaint on 23 January 2023 within its stage 2 response and apologised.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 June 2023, which was 74 working days after it raised it. This was 100 working days after the resident first made her complaint. Under its policy, and paragraph 5.1 of the Code, it should have provided its response within 10 working days and its delay was unacceptable. Within its stage 1 response the landlord accepted its failing and apologised. It said the delay was due to its recent merger, and staff changes, meaning the complaint had not been progressed. While this is not an acceptable reason, the evidence shows that it knew its response would be late on 21 March 2023. In an internal note it asked that a response be sent the first week of April 2023, and to include an apology and award of compensation. The landlord could have done more to respond sooner, and an apology and compensation is a remedy for poor service, not an alternative to following its complaints policy and the Code. This was a significant failing.
  5. The landlord failed to acknowledge escalation of the complaint within its 3 working day policy timeframe and took 6 working days to do so. It provided its stage 2 response after 21 working days, just outside of its 20-working day policy timeframe. It correctly apologised again for its complaint handling failings and offered £250 compensation.
  6. Overall, there was maladministration. The landlord’s significant failings caused additional distress, inconvenience, confusion, time and trouble for the resident. Her access to the landlord’s complaints process was impeded and then delayed. While the landlord appropriately apologised, and offered compensation, this did not reflect the level of impact caused. An order has been made that the landlord pay additional compensation of £150 to the resident, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of having no heating or hot water between 8 January 2023 and 21 March 2023.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the maladministration detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £150 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, confusion, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so since the date of this complaint, it is recommended that the landlord create a policy on boiler, heating and hot water repairs, or include a specific section within its repairs policy on these repairs. The policy or section should include whether these repairs are classed as emergency, routine, or specialist and give timeframes for completion. It should also include how it will consider residents’ individual circumstances and vulnerabilities when deciding how to prioritise these repairs.