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

Peabody Trust (202303165)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303165

Peabody Trust

14 June 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to reports of a leak.
    2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift.
    3. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property was a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor of a mid-rise building, but the resident has since moved to another property with the same landlord. At the time of the complaint, she had 4 children, including 1 child with autism and 2 twin babies.
  2. In March 2023, the resident complained to the landlord on 3 occasions about issues with the communal lift breaking down and a leak damaging her living room wall. Following a lack of response, she contacted this Service to request support in making her complaint. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 26 April 2023 and asked it to respond to the complaint within 5 working days, by 4 May 2023.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 3 May 2023. It acknowledged failings in responding to the leak in the property which it said it had since resolved. It said there was a lack of ventilation within the lift shaft which caused the lift to overheat and break down. It said that it would consider how to repair this issue and apologised for the inconvenience this may cause the resident with carrying her young children upstairs. It offered £200 compensation for the poor service that she received.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process on 4 May 2023. She said that she was concerned about the risk of dropping her children while carrying them both and the pushchair upstairs while the lift did not work. She asked it to fix the fault with the lift and to also move her to a bigger property because of overcrowding in the flat.
  5. On 4 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for incorrectly stating in its previous response that it had resolved the leak. It confirmed it had now resolved the leak and apologised for the length of time taken. It said that it was still assessing how best to resolve the communal lift issue and it would maintain regular communication with the resident regarding this. It also apologised for the inconvenience caused to her regarding the lift outages but explained it could not refund her service charges as the lift maintenance was a small part of this charge. It explained she could apply to move to another property because the lift issues made her home unsuitable. It increased its offer of compensation to £500, of which £400 was for the substantive issues and £100 was for its complaint handling.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s communication about the repair to the communal lift and she felt the compensation offered was not appropriate for the risk caused by carrying her children up and down the stairs during the lift outages. The complaint became one that the Ombudsman could investigate on 20 March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told this Service that after the landlord provided its final complaint response, the leak later returned in late 2023 which caused damp and mould in her property. Additionally, she said that she had trouble in the rehousing process which occurred after the complaints process ended. The Ombudsman cannot investigate matters that did not go through the landlord’s internal complaint process. The resident may wish to log a new complaint for the landlord to investigate her concerns and put things right. She may then bring that complaint to the Ombudsman as a new case to be investigated were she to be unhappy with the landlord’s response. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
  2. The resident has requested compensation for the impact of the substantive issues on her health and the health of her household. This Service does not award compensation in the same way that a court might quantify damages and the Ombudsman does not have the authority to reach a binding determination that the landlord has been negligent. This investigation has, however, considered any service failures and the impact on the resident as a vulnerable tenant.

The landlord’s response to reports of a leak

  1. The resident first reported a leak affecting the walls of her living room on 14 December 2022. The landlord responded appropriately, in line with the emergency repairs timescales set out in its responsive repairs policy, by inspecting the leak on the same day. The operative recommended a surveyor to inspect the external wall as they believed that rainwater leaking through an airbrick was the cause of the leak. The landlord has not provided any evidence to this Service to suggest it followed up this recommendation or made any further attempts to investigate the source of the leak. It is unclear whether it resolved the leak at this appointment.
  2. On 7 March 2023, the resident reported an uncontainable leak in the same area and noted that it had caused the plaster to crumble with a puddle of water visible. The landlord inspected the leak on the same day and found that another balcony in the block of flats needed repairs to stop the leak through the resident’s external wall. It noted the resident’s wall and ceiling had water stains and rot.
  3. Overall, the landlord’s repair records were either missing or lacking detail. It is therefore difficult to assess the time taken to complete the repairs because of the landlord’s poor record keeping. The records show that it attended the property again on 8 March 2023, but it could not find the source of the leak. It instructed its contractors to book follow on works, however, it had already noted the leak was from another balcony. The following day, it completed works to cut out a section of boxing and temporarily board it over to allow access for a plumber to stop the leak.
  4. On 14 March 2023, the landlord scheduled an appointment for the following day, but on 21 March 2023, the resident chased it for updates. It is therefore unclear whether it completed any works as scheduled for 15 March 2023. Additionally, it is also unclear whether it completed any repairs between this time and 28 April 2023, when the landlord’s contractor inspected the roof and applied sealant to try and resolve the leak.
  5. On 28 April 2023, the landlord raised works to complete recommendations made during an appointment on 20 April 2023, however, the repair records do not reference an appointment on this date. It is therefore unclear what recommendations it referred to. On 3 May 2023, it raised a job to make good the areas impacted within the living room, which it completed on 15 May 2023.
  6. The landlord’s records show that it made a temporary repair to stop the leak on 24 May 2023, but it is unclear what works it did and what prompted it to raise this job. Its contractors accepted a repairs job on 9 May 2023 which it later completed on 6 June 2023 and 7 June 2023 and resolved the leak. This repair involved installing scaffolding to remove, clean and replace the flooring base of the balcony which apparently caused the leak. It also replaced the sealant around the external brickwork. Its contractors recommended regular inspections and maintenance but there is no evidence within the landlord’s repair records to show that it did so.
  7. The landlord’s poor record keeping meant that it relied on incorrect information in its stage 1 complaint response, and wrongly stated that it had resolved the leak when it had not. While it later acknowledged and corrected this error in its final complaint response, the error would have inevitably caused inconvenience to the resident and made her question the landlord’s handling of the leak.
  8. Overall, it took the landlord 135 calendar days from 14 December 2022 to 28 April 2023 to make a temporary repair to stop the leak. The repair works far exceeded the landlord’s target timescale of 60 calendar days for a programmed repair. A programmed repair includes works related to roofing and scaffolding. It then took a further 40 calendar days to make a complete repair on 7 June 2023 to resolve the leak.
  9. In the final complaint response, the landlord awarded £400 compensation towards both its handling of the leak and for the failures in fixing the lift fault. It does not explain how much it awarded for the issues separately, and so the Ombudsman has considered this as an equal split between the issues, totalling £200 compensation for the handling of the leak.
  10. While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failures in its handling and resolving of the leak, its offer of £200 compensation was not proportionate to offer redress for the failings identified within this investigation. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay a further £400 compensation for the failures in its response to reports of the leak and the distress and inconvenience this would have understandably caused to the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which have adversely affected a resident.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift

  1. It is not disputed that the landlord failed to maintain accurate records regarding the resident’s reports of the communal lift breaking down. It acknowledged in its complaint responses that it only had records of 3 repair requests from the resident but knew she had reported this on multiple occasions. It apologised and said it would investigate why it had not recorded most reports. It was appropriate for it take such action to learn from the complaint.
  2. The landlord’s repair records do not show any repairs related to the communal lift, including the 3 reports mentioned in the landlord’s complaint responses. Due to the poor record keeping, it is therefore difficult to assess what actions the landlord took to resolve the issues at the time, if any.
  3. Following the resident’s initial complaint, the landlord exchange multiple internal emails to try to find the communal lift fault and a plan to rectify it. There is no evidence of any communication or actions taken before the complaints process started, despite being aware of the resident’s concerns. This is a failing. The landlord established that the cause of the communal lift outages was due to a lack of ventilation in the lift shaft, which caused the lift to overheat and reset itself. It is not disputed that the outages occurred multiple times per day and lasted up to 40 minutes at a time.
  4. The Ombudsman acknowledges that communal lift faults can be difficult to diagnose and resolve. It can also be time consuming to find a suitable repair as it may become a lengthy process through a major programme of works or a section 20 process (as set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985). As such, there is no specific timescale that the landlord should complete the lift repair by, but its actions should be reasonable, and it should consider the impact of the repair on the resident and provide regular communication to her throughout.
  5. The landlord’s staff member responsible for responding to the final complaint response repeatedly asked for updates internally to be able to provide information to the resident during the complaints process but often received no response. It is evident that there was a lack of communication and joint working between the complaint teams and the teams responsible for the lift repairs. This impacted the landlord’s ability to update the resident, resulting in very few meaningful updates given to her regarding progress of the repair to the communal lift.
  6. The resident told the landlord that she struggled to climb the stairs with her 4 children, including 2 twin babies, and the pushchair during the outages. Despite being aware of this, the landlord did not appropriately consider or respond to her concerns during the complaints process. While it did apologise for the inconvenience and impact caused by the lift outages, it did not consider or offer any ways it could assist her with the difficulties she experienced in the meantime. If it had, it may have found ways to support her while it assessed how to repair the lift, and this would have shown its understanding of the issues she faced. There is no evidence to show that it considered any contingency plans to help her during this time.
  7. The landlord was aware of the risk that the resident had repeatedly explained in terms of her being unable to safely enter and leave the property. On 19 June 2023, the landlord reiterated this risk within internal emails, and it noted that the lift stopped working at least 2 times per day. It is evident that after the complaints process ended, the landlord later arranged a welfare visit to the resident, on 17 August 2023. In internal communications, the landlord said it was prompted to complete a welfare visit because the resident had presented herself as homeless to the local authority. It is a failing that it did not take such steps before this, which may have prevented the resident from needing to seek homelessness assistance.
  8. During the complaints process, the resident asked whether she could use another private lift while it considered how to complete the communal lift repairs. The landlord considered her request and later confirmed in its final complaint response that this was not possible because the private lift did not serve her floor. While it was appropriate for it to consider her request, it is a concern that the landlord did not investigate this option itself earlier given the resident’s concerns of the impact of the lift outages, without the resident needing to attempt to problem solve.
  9. The landlord was reluctant to consider the option of a decant to the resident during this time and it did not investigate this option during the complaints process. In internal emails on 17 August 2023, it said it was concerned about offering a decant without a plan of when it would resolve the communal lift issue and when she would be able to return to the property. A senior member of the landlord’s management team said they would “sleep on it” regarding its decision to offer a decant to her. This response was not appropriate and reflected its lack of urgency to resolve the concerns she had. The landlord’s failure to establish an action plan of how it would resolve the lift issue was unreasonable and impacted its decision-making around the decant options.
  10. Another staff member noted that if it moved the resident temporarily, it would need to consider moving other vulnerable residents too. Given that it was aware of the reported impact of the issues on the resident, it should have assessed whether she needed a decant, rather than considering withholding a decant based on the cost or impact of creating decants for other residents. Additionally, it would have been good practice and appropriate for it to consider whether the lift outages impacted other residents and offer appropriate support to those too.
  11. In an internal email on 18 August 2023, the landlord said the issue had been ongoing since April 2023 and acknowledged that it had made little progress in resolving the issue. It flagged that there was a reputational risk involved because the resident had sought support from the Ombudsman. The landlord should be committed to resolving all repairs in a timely manner in line with its responsive repairs policy, rather than flagging and potentially expediting matters which this Service is involved in. At the time of this communication, the resident had made her complaint over 4 months prior, and the landlord was no further forward in resolving the substantive issue.
  12. After the landlord issued its final complaint response, it considered other ways of supporting the resident including installing a stairlift. It should have considered this option earlier in the complaints process to show its commitment to relieving the concerns the resident had.
  13. Additionally, the landlord offered support in permanently rehousing the resident after the complaints process ended. Its support staff helped her through making direct offers of alternative accommodation. However, in its final complaint response, it apologised that the issues with the lift made her property unsuitable and advised her to explore rehousing through its choice-based lettings system. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered support with permanent rehousing much sooner given her concerns. It is a failing that it delayed in doing so.
  14. It is a failing of the landlord that despite knowing it would take a long time to resolve the communal lift issue, it did not act quickly enough to support the resident with rehousing (both temporarily and permanently). Instead, it left the resident in a difficult situation. The resident told the landlord that as well as the difficulty navigating the stairs with her children, her older daughter also had a diagnosis of autism, and the child was struggling to use the lift due to a fear of it breaking during use. There is no evidence to suggest that it acted upon these concerns by discussing what support it could provide to her or sending a staff member to the property to talk through her options during the complaints process.
  15. It is a concern that the landlord failed to consider its duties under the Equalities Act 2010. It should have considered whether any reasonable adjustments were appropriate due to the reported impact that the lift outages had on the household. There is no evidence to suggest that it did so despite being aware of the various vulnerabilities and a disability within the household.
  16. Overall, the landlord’s actions after the final complaint response failed to demonstrate that it had learned lessons to be more proactive as it did not provide timely communication and updates to the resident, nor did it offer appropriate support to her at an earlier stage.
  17. In the final complaint response, the staff member responding to the complaint committed to remain in contact with the resident until it found a solution to the communal lift issues. However, later, on 17 October 2023, it told her that due to the lift problem being complex and because it would be a long process to resolve the issue, it would end its involvement with the complaint commitments. This would have understandably added further distress and inconvenience to her. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation towards its handling of repairs to the communal lift was not proportionate to the failings identified within this investigation.
  18. Considering this, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord has not acted in accordance with this Service’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Ombudsman therefore finds a determination of maladministration appropriate. The landlord is ordered to pay a further £950 compensation to the resident in recognition of the time and trouble and impact on her regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift. This is appropriate redress in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which had a significant impact on the resident.
  19. The Ombudsman recognises that there may be other residents within the block of flats who may have been, or currently are, impacted by similar issues. We have therefore decided to issue an order under paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its handling of the service failures identified in this determination, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter. We have set out the scope of the review below.

The associated complaint handling

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 March 2023 regarding both the concerns of the leak in her property and the issue with the communal lift. The resident believed this contact meant that she had logged a complaint, however, the landlord’s records note these contacts as individual service requests.
  2. On 30 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again regarding her concerns with the lift. The landlord’s records show that it logged this as a complaint, but it did not provide any acknowledgement or response to her complaint. This prompted the resident to contact this Service for support in making her complaint. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 26 April 2023 and asked it to provide a complaint response within 5 working days, by 4 May 2023.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it acknowledged that the resident had previously raised a complaint regarding the leak in her property. It apologised for its lack of response which caused her to escalate the matter to this Service. While it was appropriate for it to acknowledge its failings, it failed to offer any compensation to offer redress for the time and trouble that the resident experienced in making her complaint.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 4 May 2023. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and the landlord’s complaints policy, it should provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request. This meant it should have responded to the complaint by 5 June 2023. However, the landlord had to agree 2 extensions with the resident in responding to the complaint due it not having any updates from its teams responsible for the repair of the communal lift. It provided the final complaint response on 4 July 2023 which was 41 working days after the resident escalated her complaint.
  5. While the landlord followed its policy and the Code in agreeing the extensions with the resident, it could have prevented this if it maintained accurate records and it responded to the repairs of the substantive issues in line with its responsive repairs policy. By not doing so, it added further distress to the resident during an already challenging time.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to refund her service charges because of the impact of the issues with the communal lift. In its final complaint response, the landlord said it would not offer a refund because the lift maintenance aspect would be a small part of the charge and it would be difficult to calculate a refund because it worked intermittently. It is understood that it instead offered £200 compensation towards the inconvenience caused by the delay in fixing the lift. The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy outlines that it can provide a full or partial refund for service charges if there is evidence that it did not provide a service as expected. Given the evidence outlined in this investigation, an order has been made below regarding this.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to pay her compensation for the potential risk of an injury to her children caused by struggling on the stairs to enter and leave the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to not offer compensation towards a potential risk as there is no evidence to show that this would have occurred. This is also in line with the landlord’s compensation and remedies policy.
  8. As part of the resident’s complaint escalation request, she said that the property was overcrowded and she wanted to move to another property. Where a resident raises a new issue after the landlord has responded to the initial complaint, these matters should be treated as a separate complaint. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to not address these concerns within the final complaint response.
  9. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it offered £100 compensation in recognition of the time taken to resolve the resident’s complaint. While it was appropriate for it to acknowledge the delay, it failed to offer redress towards the failure to accept the resident’s initial complaint prior to her seeking support from this Service. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay an additional £150 compensation for the time and trouble caused by its associated complaint handling. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident but where the failures had no permanent impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified within this investigation report. It should include specific examples of where failures occurred.
    2. Pay the resident the £500 compensation which it offered in its final complaint response if it has not already done so.
    3. Pay the resident an additional £1,500 compensation. It should pay this directly to the resident and not the rent account. This is made up of:
      1. £400 compensation for its response to reports of a leak.
      2. £950 compensation for its handling of repairs to the communal lift.
      3. £150 compensation for the associated complaint handling.
  2. Within 10 weeks of the date of this determination, in accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Address the wider public interest by visiting (in person) each of its residents within the block who have access to the communal lift and complete a risk assessment relating to all household members, including whether there are any vulnerabilities which may mean they are adversely impacted by the continuing breakdown of the lift. It should then create a contingency plan to provide support to those impacted by the communal lift issue. It should confirm any contingency plans to each resident in writing.
    2. Review its position regarding a refund of the resident’s services charges, given that in line with its policy, there is evidence that it did not provide a service as expected. It should consider whether a service charge refund is appropriate, and whether it should pay this to the resident and to all other residents impacted by the communal lift issues within the block of flats. It should write to the resident with the outcome of this review.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.