Peabody Trust (202304617)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304617

Peabody Trust

19 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s insulation.
2. Complaint handling and customer service.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the property which the complaint concerns. The landlord is the freeholder.
The resident purchased the property on 18 February 2022.
The property is a 3 bedroom top floor flat situated in a purpose built building (the block). The block was built in 2018. There is a loft space above the property however this space does not form part of the property; in accordance with the lease.
Build warranty and latent defect are terms which will be referred to within this report. A build warranty is a structural warranty taken out by the developer or builder to protect the buyer of a new build property against the cost of repairing structural defects from faults in the design, materials, workmanship, installation or construction. The build warranty will transfer to the new owner if the property is sold while the warranty is still in date. A latent defect is a defect which is not apparent or readily detectable until years after a project has been completed.
On 10 March 2023 the resident submitted a repair request to the landlord. The resident said that she had recently instructed an independent thermographic survey (the survey) of the property which had revealed “defects of insulation throughout the flat”. She requested assistance from the landlord to address the problem.
Between 16 March 2023 and 19 May 2023 the resident chased the landlord on many occasions to request a response to her repair request. During this period the resident provided the landlord with a copy of the survey.
On 26 May 2023 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord about its customer service which she described as “appalling”. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord failed to respond to general enquiries and complaints.
2. The landlord did not follow up on issues or provide information on how it was, or was not, responding to a matter.
3. Wait times to speak with the landlord were excessive.
4. Call centre operatives frequently could not resolve issues.
5. She was not informed upon purchasing the property that there was a designated manager for the block.
On 5 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord for an update on her repair request as she had not had a response.
On 11 July 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response following a conversation with the resident. The landlord confirmed that it understood that the resident’s complaint concerned “problems with the insulation in [the property’s] loft and the poor customer service” she had received. In summary the landlord said:
1. Concerns regarding defective insulation was a matter for its latent defects team (LD team) and could not be considered under its complaint procedure. It had therefore referred the issue to the LD team for a response. It was sorry for the delay in confirming that the repair request was for the LD team.
2. It was sorry for the poor customer service which the resident had received in respect of her repair request and that she felt ignored.
3. Following its merger with another housing provider it had made “substantial” changes to its ways of working which would improve a customer’s journey and experience when using its services. The landlord did not provide further details.
4. It would like to offer the resident £250 compensation for the “time, trouble and inconvenience” she had experienced.
On 13 July 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that she did not accept the stage 1 response. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint. She believed that £1,000 would be a more reasonable offer.
2. She had spent significant time pursuing the landlord for a response to her repair request however it had not been forthcoming.
3. The landlord’s customer service was poor, including:
  1. Long call wait times.
  2. Unactioned call back requests. When they were actioned, only one attempt was made.
  3. Unanswered emails.
  4. Automated acknowledgements were not provided following the sending of an email or the submission of a webform.
  5. Lack of information and updates regarding its merger with another housing provider.
On 31 July 2023 the landlord responded confirming that it was able to increase its offer of compensation to £400. It explained that this was the maximum it was able to offer in line with its compensation policy. The landlord did not provide a breakdown of its offer.
On 1 August 2023 the resident requested to escalate the complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord was yet to respond to her repair request. The LD team had not made contact with her and had not responded to her direct contacts. The issue of the faulty insulation was therefore outstanding. The landlord must arrange a visit to inspect the property for “potential insulation defects both in the loft and cavity wall”.
2. The landlord’s new offer of compensation was still not reflective of the circumstances of the case.
On 21 August 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. The landlord confirmed that the stage 2 investigation would consider its response to address defective insulation and the level of compensation offered at stage 1.
On 11 September 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to request a copy of the survey in order to complete its stage 2 investigation. The resident provided the survey on 18 September 2023.
On 26 September 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2, final, response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 request.
2. It was sorry that the resident was incorrectly advised that it could not consider its response to her repair request under its complaint procedure as the matter was a latent defect. This information was incorrect.
3. The LD team had reviewed the survey. The landlord did not provide any further information on the outcome of the review.
4. The resident purchased the property through a resale between leaseholders.
5. The contractor who built the block was no longer in business. The resident, as the leaseholder of the property, would need to initiate a claim under the build warranty for insulation defects. It enclosed a copy of the build warranty certificate for the property.
6. Its offer of £400 compensation remained valid. It confirmed that the compensation comprised:
  1. £100 delay in issuing the stage 1 response.
  2. £50 delay in acknowledging the escalation request.
  3. £250 for time, trouble and inconvenience, including the time taken to clarify the position regarding the latent defect and incorrect information regarding the complaint procedure.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer the complaint to us if she was not happy with its response.
On 26 September 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that she was “not satisfied” with its final response. In summary the resident said:
1. She had contacted the build warranty holder in June 2023 who concluded that a defect with insulation was not within its line of responsibility. She therefore considered that the issue was the landlord’s responsibility to address. (The resident has provided us with a copy of the build warranty holder’s decision dated June 2023).
2. The landlord’s response did not address her concerns regarding its poor customer service. She had not seen any improvements in its service since she first made her complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s insulation

We have reviewed the survey dated 9 March 2023. The survey highlights insufficient insulation throughout the property resulting in heat loss. In addition the survey noted that ventilation was being ducted into the loft void above the property and not extracted out of the block. We have no reason to doubt the credibility of the expert the resident used to complete the survey. The expert has set out their credentials and the report is thorough and provides evidence to support the findings made. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord disagreed or disputed the findings of the survey.
The evidence shows that on 10 March 2023 the resident submitted a repair request reporting defective insulation. The evidence further shows on 16 March 2023 the resident shared the survey with the landlord. On receipt of this information the landlord was required to investigate and make good any issues identified which were its responsibility under the terms of the property’s lease.
It was not until the resident made a complaint in May 2023 that the landlord responded to her concerns regarding the insulation. This was following at least 9 chasers by the resident requesting a response to her repair request and the survey.
In its stage 1 response, dated 11 July 2023, the landlord confirmed that the repair request had been forwarded to its LD team for consideration as it was within its area of responsibility. This was a period of approximately 83 working days which was a protracted timeframe. The evidence does not document a reason to explain the delay. While it was appropriate that the landlord had committed to looking into the resident’s concerns, it is unacceptable that it only did so following the complaint. This demonstrates a lack of ownership and oversight by the landlord.
Despite the landlord’s commitment dated 11 July 2023 there is no evidence of the LD team considering the resident’s concerns at that time. This is unsatisfactory as it was a commitment it had made in order to resolve the complaint. The evidence shows that it was only following the resident’s complaint escalation that the LD team reviewed the survey. It is unsatisfactory that the resident was required to escalate the complaint for the landlord to act.
While the landlord confirmed that it did review the resident’s repair request and survey, as part of its final response, there is no evidence documenting the review. The landlord should have made a record which included the nature of the review, information considered and its decision. This is because a landlord should provide adequate reason and explanation to support its decisions and how it is meeting its obligations. By not making a record it has limited our ability to assess the quality and reasonableness of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the insulation. This is inappropriate.
In this case we consider that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have inspected the property. An inspection would have allowed the landlord to assess the property’s insulation and respond to the survey’s findings. This would have demonstrated that the landlord was taking steps to consider the resident’s concerns and to see if it was required to take any action. It would also have allowed the landlord to have assessed the loft area which was its responsibility.
We recognise that once the landlord had taken this action it may have concluded that it was not an issue it had any obligation to rectify. In not taking this action the landlord however failed to demonstrate that it had fully considered the information to it, the survey, and its obligations and any discretionary actions it could take to improve the situation.
In addition to confirming that it would not take any action in response to the survey the landlord signposted the resident to the warranty provider for assistance. While this was reasonable advice, as it could fall within the warranty provider’s remit, this did not relieve it from its obligation to also explain and demonstrate why it would not take action itself.
On receipt of the landlord’s final response the resident informed it that she had been in contact with the warranty provider who had refused her claim. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this information on receipt to see if further investigation into the matter was required by it. This is unsatisfactory and was a missed opportunity.
In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in responding to the resident’s repair request and the survey. It therefore awarded £250 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that compensation may be awarded where its service delivery has fallen short. As the landlord had identified a service failure it was positive that it engaged its policy in recognition that it had delayed in responding to the repair requests and the survey. However, this offer did not fully recognise all the failings in this case.
There was maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s insulation. The landlord has not demonstrated that it has taken reasonable steps to investigate the concerns raised by the resident and identified by the survey. The landlord’s decision to not take any action is not supported by evidence of an appropriate assessment or thorough consideration of the issue.

The landlord’s complaint handling and customer service

The landlord did not respond to the complaint in a timely manner. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 32 working days following receipt of the complaint and its stage 2 response 40 working days after it received the escalation request. Both responses exceeded its service standards for issuing a response; 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and 20 working days for stage 2 complaints. This is unsatisfactory and will have resulted in uncertainty, inconvenience and distress to the resident in addition to feeling that her concerns were not being taken seriously.
At stage 2 the landlord acknowledged that its complaint handling had not been satisfactory. The landlord therefore awarded the resident £150 compensation for complaint handling. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the delays experienced and the impact on the resident.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that a landlord must address all points raised by a resident and provide clear reasons for any decisions made. In responding to the complaint the landlord did not do this.
Firstly the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns regarding its customer service. This included excessive call wait times, unanswered correspondence and information on its merger. This is unsatisfactory. In not doing so it suggests that the landlord was not fully focussed on resolving the complaint or providing a comprehensive response. It also demonstrates poor customer service by the landlord, as complained about by the resident.
Secondly the landlord did not provide the outcome of the LD team’s review of the survey. This is unsatisfactory. The landlord should have provided the LD team’s conclusions and why it did not consider that it was required to take any action. The resident will have been left unclear as a result.
The landlord’s complaint policy sets out the types of complaints which can be looked at. This includes delays in responding to an enquiry and failure to provide a service. It was therefore incorrect for the landlord to decline to consider the resident’s concerns about defective insulation at stage 1 as this would fall within the scope of the policy. The landlord acknowledged its error at stage 2. It therefore apologised and confirmed that this mistake was considered in calculating its award for time, trouble and inconvenience. The landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to the service failure it identified.
On 11 September 2023 the landlord requested a copy of the survey to respond to the complaint. This was unsatisfactory as the resident had already provided a copy in March 2023. This demonstrates poor record keeping by the landlord as a landlord should have systems in place to maintain appropriate records relating to a property.
There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling and customer service. The landlord did not respond to all parts of the resident’s complaint and it did not file a copy of the survey on receipt.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman finds:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s insulation.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling and customer service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should within 4 weeks of the date of this determination provide a written apology to the resident in respect of the failings identified by this investigation.
The landlord should pay the resident a total of £900 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. This figure comprise the £400 which the landlord offered itself in consideration of the complaint, if it has not already been paid, in addition to an extra £500 comprising:
1. £400 in recognition of the inconvenience, distress and uncertainty caused to the resident for not demonstrating that its decision in respect of the property’s insulation was made following an appropriate assessment or thorough consideration of the issue.
2. £100 in recognition of the uncertainty to the resident caused by not responding to all parts of the complaint.
The landlord should within 4 weeks of the date of this determination inspect the property in relation to the findings from the survey. Within 2 weeks of the inspection the landlord should write to the resident to confirm the outcome, providing a schedule of any works required. A copy should be provided to us.

Recommendations

Should the inspection of the property raise any concerns with the property the landlord should consider whether it is necessary to inspect the wider block for similar issues. The landlord should document its findings appropriately so that it has a record of the decision made.