Peabody Trust (202306435)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306435

Peabody Trust

10 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of multiple repair issues affecting her property and the communal area.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat on the second floor within a converted building comprised of similar properties.
The landlord has advised that the resident initially reported issues of a slow leak from her toilet in January 2020 which was causing damage to the communal area.
In May 2020, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord and its contractors handling of multiple reports of repair issues. She noted the impact of COVID-19 but stated that many of the reported issues pre-dated the pandemic. Her concerns related to repairs to her bath panel, her toilet which needed replacing, pest issues within her property, her shower that only provided scalding water, her sash windows, damage to the communal area from the leak (including a hole in the ceiling), damage to the flooring, and internal damage and mould. The landlord confirmed that a complaint had been raised in June 2020.
In July 2020, following further contact from the resident regarding her toilet, shower, and contractor behaviour, the landlord confirmed that a surveyor needed to attend due to the number of repairs reported. The resident pursued the issues in September 2020, and said:
1. There was still a hole in the communal ceiling following the leak, and internal remedial works had not been arranged. There was also more leaking through an external wall and she could see that pointing, which had been completed recently, had broken off.
2. There had been further unprofessional behaviour by contractors, and she had needed to spend significant time pursuing the repairs. She had been informed that operatives could previously not gain access to the property when she had been home which she believed was a fault with the landlord’s scheduling systems. She also reported that operatives had noted issues preventing them from parking at the address.
3. Tiles in her bathroom had been damaged by an operative which were now sharp, and she had been given differing information from its contractors as to whether the materials had been ordered to replace the tiles.
4. An operative attended to the windows which she had not been able to open due to their weight, and they had organised another operative to attend.
5. She had not received any communication from the landlord.
A member of staff informed the resident that they had passed on her emails internally on 10 September 2020 as they no longer worked in the relevant business area. In November 2020, it was established that works were needed to the roof felt and scaffolding was required. This was approved in late November 2020, however, the resident reported on 8 December 2020 that her family member had fixed the guttering which was causing leaks into the property and the water had stopped leaking since the repair. The landlord’s records show that the resident did not want scaffolding erected over the Christmas period, but that works to the roof needed to be picked up in the new year.
Between January and June 2021, the following occurred:
1. Works required to replaster areas of the communal hallway and ceiling were assessed on 23 February 2021, and attended to on 24 March 2021, with follow-on works noted to be required to sand and decorate.
2. Scaffolding was erected on 9 March 2021 for works required to renew a window on the side of the roof, tiles, the gutter, and lead flashing. The notes indicated that the tiles needed to be tested for asbestos and asbestos was confirmed on 23 March 2021.
3. The resident pursued her concerns in April 2021, expressing dissatisfaction that a number of works remained outstanding. The issues related to scaffolding and her security concerns, roof repairs, works to the communal hallway, continuing pointing problems and damaged bricks, mould in her bedroom and bathroom as well as plasterwork faults, windows not functioning, and there had been no follow-up regarding her bathroom tiles. She also raised concerns with the front door, fire doors, her toilet, and internal flooring in the communal area.
4. 3 members of the landlord’s staff responded to the resident on 27 April 2021, each apologising that repairs were outstanding. Job numbers for the relevant repairs and booked attendance dates were provided to the resident. A staff member advised that as all of the repairs listed were still within its expected timeframes, there was no service failure, and a complaint would not be raised. The records suggest that a mould wash was scheduled for the same day.
5. An appointment to assess the works required to the plastering inside the property was completed on 11 May 2021. Works to overhaul 2 sash windows took place on 18 May 2021, with the notes indicating the window could be closed.
6. Roof works for the landlord’s asbestos team and the roofers to complete were rearranged and reported as completed as of 21 May 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord via her MP on 7 June 2021 and the landlord logged a formal complaint on 11 June 2021. She explained that:
1. She had come to a point of despair, noting that the landlord did not take responsibility for the problems reported and she needed to chase and push to get any result.
2. Her bathroom tiling remained damaged, works to the communal hallway had not yet been fully resolved, and her sash windows had supposedly been fixed 3 times, but she continued to experience issues.
3. Scaffolding had been in place for 3 months and the landlord had not informed residents before this was erected. It had been left following works and there was no indication of when it would be removed. This was a security concern. Other roofing repairs were outstanding and there was mould on the internal walls of the property, and cracks and damp patches in her children’s bedroom as well as various outstanding communal repairs.
4. She had been told that her concerns had been raised as a complaint, but this had then been passed between staff and she had not received a response. She had also repeatedly been told that she could not raise a complaint until the repairs were completed.
5. She had asked someone to oversee all works through to completion but was told that she was not entitled to this due to not being vulnerable and having missed 3 appointments. She maintained that she had been in at the time of the appointments and operatives had closed these as no access.
6. The landlord had passed her back to the contractors rather than holding them accountable, and she had experienced rude behaviour when attempting to book works. She also noted the extensive time she had needed to spend on the phone to arrange works.
Between June 2021 and May 2022, the following occurred:
1. Work to address cracks to the internal plastering in the resident’s bedrooms and bathroom and mould was scheduled for 24 June 2021 but rebooked. Repairs were attended and rebooked on a number of occasions between 24 June 2021 and 6 August 2021. On 6 August 2021, the landlord established that there was a further leak and works were not completed to the bathroom. The landlord’s records suggest that the work to the bathroom was completed in November 2021.
2. Further roof works were booked for 22 June 2021 and instructions to dismantle the scaffolding were then sent to the contractor on 23 July 2021. Roof works took place on 27 August 2021 following reports of a further leak. This involved installing new lead, which was missing, renewing defective pointing and flashing, and filling gaps with mortar. The notes show that further works were recommended to resolve cracked pointing on the chimney and flashing to the main wall (about another flat) and the communal corridor as these could cause leaks in the future.
3. The resident continued to chase works to the bathroom tiles and in September 2021, the landlord’s records show that no work to the tiles would be completed. In its communication in February 2022, the landlord said it would not complete the work as the tiles were not its standard floor covering but it would reimburse the resident if she provided costs for the work.
4. An appointment to inspect the windows took place on 25 June 2021 and work to overhaul the windows in the kitchen and bedroom were completed on 9 July 2021. Further issues were reported in August 2021 and booked in for 1 September 2021. Additional works to the windows were completed on 13 December 2021, however, further problems were reported on 30 December 2021. The inspection was rearranged due to the resident’s children being unwell, and her being unavailable. She chased the work 3 times in February 2022 and an inspection took place on 30 March 2022. Works to overhaul the windows and replace springs and weights were then reported as completed on 17 May 2022.
5. Works to sand down the walls in the communal hallway and decorate took place on 8 July 2021. The landlord’s records from 21 February 2022 indicate that the resident had raised concern about the quality of the work, noting that there were cracks and lumps of filler. The landlord’s notes stated that this redecoration would be picked up under cyclical maintenance works.
The landlord issued a “final” stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 19 May 2022. It acknowledged that there had been delays, a lack of communication, and numerous appointments, and offered £500 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience experienced by the resident. It also apologised that the standard of service and customer care the resident had received was below what it expected and confirmed that it had shared information regarding the resident’s case with its contract management team to improve its service. It noted that the final window repair had now been completed, meaning that all repair issues that had been raised initially were now resolved.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 19 and 20 May 2022 as its contractors had not ordered the correct parts and the repair to her windows was ongoing. She remained dissatisfied with the lack of improvement in the landlord’s service and systems in place to resolve complaints and repairs. She did not feel that the landlord’s response had been analytical or active enough in explaining why failings such as delays, ineptitude or unprofessionalism had repeatedly occurred. She was also concerned that the landlord had not addressed how it would improve to ensure that other residents did not have the same experience as her and her family.
An appointment to complete works to the windows was arranged for 27 June 2022 but these were not completed on the day due to an incident with the operative, who had caused damage to an item belonging to the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 29 June 2022 and explained the following:
1. It acknowledged that the resident had first complained about its contractor on 12 March 2020 regarding a leak from her toilet. It noted that as the complaint covered an extended period, it was difficult to describe the distress the situation had caused her.
2. It agreed that there had been failures in its handling of roofing works, noting that its initial contractor had managed works poorly and first diagnosed the cause of the reported leak to be plumbing related in March 2020. Its initial contractor had also marked jobs as completed when this was not the case and their poor management led to a second contractor needing to start from scratch. The time it had taken both contractors to complete works exceeded its service timescales and there had been an excessive number of visits.
3. It noted that the window work was initially put on hold due to the impact of COVID-19 and between August 2020 and July 2021 the resident continued to experience issues with the windows and an excessive number of appointments. It had passed the work onto a different contractor in July 2021 but there were still faults with the management of the work. Following a visit on 27 June 2022, it had decided to use a different contractor, who would contact the resident directly.
4. It acknowledged that the resident had reported that her toilet kept leaking in January 2020 and on 2 March 2020. Its contractors established that the toilet needed to be changed but this was not completed until June 2020. The contractors had identified other leaks which led to damage in the communal area. While some works were completed, not all decoration had been done.
5. It noted that mould in the property was the result of water ingress issues from both the roof and plumbing. It explained that to treat the mould properly, it needed to first resolve the water ingress issues, and accepted that the delays in handling these works had led to a delay in resolving the mould within the property. It noted that works had been carried out to cracks, skirting boards and stain blocking in October 2021 but that the resident had reported that further decoration works were required. It agreed to offer £100 towards the cost of decoration materials.
6. It noted that when the resident called to get help, she was often passed back to the contractor, and experienced extended waiting times. It acknowledged that had there been closer management and a reduced number of contractor visits, the works would not have been delayed for as long as they had been. It noted that some of the delay in completing works was as the result of problematic supply chains following lockdown restrictions, but that there was also poor contractor performance.
7. It acknowledged that there had been poor complaint handling, and that the resident had raised several complaints, which were not always correctly managed or escalated, as well as delays. It offered the resident £950 compensation, comprised of £650 for her time, trouble, and inconvenience, £200 for poor complaint handling, and £100 towards decoration expenses. It explained that the resident’s rent account was currently in arrears due to a shortfall in her Universal Credit payments and said that it would clear these before making any payment to her directly.
The resident pursued the repair to her window on 15 July 2022 as an appointment had been arranged but the operative did not attend. She noted that the windows were currently dangerous as the previous operative had removed the sash and all mechanisms. The windows in the kitchen, bedroom, and landing were attended to on 3 September 2022. The landlord’s records show that works involved installing new spiral balances, weights, and a lock.
The resident continued to report issues with her windows in late September 2022. Heavier spiral balances were fitted to a window in November 2022. A quote from 22 February 2023 shows that the window matter was ongoing, and that several windows needed to be overhauled, with new springs required. These works were completed in August 2023 and a recall for further repairs was completed in September 2023. It remains unclear as to whether this has now been fully resolved.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in May 2023 as she had needed to spend additional effort seeking a resolution from the landlord, who had not completed works or responded to her contact. She wanted the landlord to take responsibility through policy changes and putting measures in place to ensure mistakes are learnt from to actively improve its service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes that the resident continued to experience issues following the landlord’s formal complaint response in June 2022. Various further repairs were raised for the roof, sash windows, damp and mould, and the communal flooring. This Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure, because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded appropriately to the complaint under consideration, and whether it completed all agreed actions. This report will not consider any specific events after September 2022, when the window repair was completed.
The resident had also raised concerns about pests in her property alongside the complaint under consideration. These issues are noted to be part of a separate complaint the resident raised to the landlord and do not form part of this investigation.
In her communication, the resident had made reference to how the landlord’s handling of these matters impacted her health and wellbeing. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, or award damages in the same way a court might. The resident may wish to seek advice on pursuing a personal injury claim should she feel that her health has been impacted by the landlord’s action or inaction. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for repairs needed to communal areas, roofs and external walls, glazing and window frames, plastering, bath panels, plumbing leaks, tiling, flooring in kitchens and bathrooms, damp caused by building defects and ventilation, and pest issues. Internal painting and wallpapering are usually the resident’s responsibility.
The landlord’s repairs policy at the time of the resident’s complaint set out timescales for different categories of repairs. Emergency repairs were to be attended to within 4 hours to make safe. Non-urgent repairs were to be completed within 28 calendar days. Recalls, where works had failed and contractors were required to reattend, were to be completed within 5 calendar days. Programmed repairs or specialist works, which required additional time due to manufacture, complexity or specialist trades, including window replacements, roofing works, and damp works, were to be completed within 60 calendar days.
The policy includes a breakdown of repairs considered essential and non-essential during the later COVID-19 lockdown. It remains unclear from the evidence provided as to the specific timescales in which the landlord had restricted its repairs service to essential repairs only. Works to glazing and window frames, external walls, plastering, leaking pipework in a bathroom, condensation and mould, damp caused by building defects, roof and guttering leaks and roof damage, were classed as essential repairs. Repairs to internal painting and wallpapering, tiling, and bath panels, were considered non-essential.
The landlord operated a 2 stage formal complaints process at the time of the resident’s complaints. Prior to its formal process, the landlord may first look to resolve the matter informally. Its informal stage is known as an “expression of dissatisfaction”. Where the case is escalated formally, this would be acknowledged at stage 1 within 3 working days and responded to within 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances, the response can be delayed by up to a further 10 working days. This must be communicated to the resident. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint. The landlord is expected to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of multiple repairs affecting the resident’s property

In this case, it is evident that the resident needed to spend considerable time and trouble pursuing her requests for repairs to be carried out over a significant period from 2020 onward. The Ombudsman accepts that some of the delays experienced by the resident from March 2020 were likely the result of the COVID-19 pandemic which understandably had an impact on repairs services. However, it is evident that the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident regarding the repairs or any limitations it faced. It has noted that poor contractor performance, and a lack of management all contributed to the delays experienced by the resident.
The landlord has acknowledged in its responses that a leak from the resident’s toilet began in January 2020. The fault was not found until March 2020, and the toilet was not replaced until June 2020. It noted that this had caused damage to the communal area but failed to comment on the delay in resolving the problem specifically within its responses.
While the landlord has somewhat acknowledged the overall time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing her concerns, the evidence shows that the works to resolve the damage to the communal area were not raised until February 2021, despite the resident bringing this to the landlord’s attention throughout 2020. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have effectively communicated any limitations it faced in its ability to complete the works at the time. The works were then not completed until July 2021, a significant time later. The landlord also failed to comment further on the resident’s concerns that the previous work was carried out to a poor standard in February 2022 within its complaint responses. This would have been appropriate in order to fully resolve the resident’s concerns.
The resident also raised concern in September 2020 that her bathroom tiles had been cracked by an operative who had attended to replace the toilet in June 2020. Further, she said that an operative had attended to renew the tiles and broke 2 additional tiles, which had caused her daughter to cut her foot. She noted that she had been told both that the replacement tiles had been ordered, and that the contractor had not had time to order them and she wanted the landlord to provide clarity and arrange for works to repair the tiles. She then continued to express dissatisfaction that contractors had taken the tiles twice to complete a colour match, but she had not received any follow-up in April 2021.
The landlord’s records suggest that an appointment was arranged for 30 April 2021, however, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm whether this was attended to, and the resident confirmed that nothing had been done within her complaint on 7 June 2021. There are discrepancies in the landlord’s records for the works which indicate that the repair was not managed effectively. Its records indicate on 14 June 2021 that an appointment had been rearranged for 8 July 2021, yet a note on 15 June 2021 stated that there was an appointment for 30 June 2021.
The appointment for 30 June 2021 was reported as no access, and the other appointment on 8 July 2021 was attended but there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the tiles were addressed. The resident needed to then spend additional time and trouble pursuing the repair to the tiles on 19 July and 6 August 2021, over a year following her initial report. The landlord’s records from 16 September 2021 indicate that no work would be carried out to the bathroom flooring, but here is no clear explanation as to why at the time and no evidence to suggest that this decision was effectively explained to the resident.
In its communication with the resident on 21 February 2022, approximately 5 months later, the landlord said that the work was not completed, and the resident had requested compensation for the service failings. It had suggested that it provided compensation so that the resident was able to complete the work herself, as the tiles were not its standard vinyl floor covering, and it did not lay tiles for residents. It asked the resident to confirm the cost of the work.
Ultimately, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have arranged for the floor tiles to be repaired or replaced, or offered to replace the floor covering with its standard material given that it was responsible for floor coverings in line with its repairs policy. It had also accepted that the damage had been caused by its operatives. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer to compensate the resident for the cost of the works if she wanted to complete this herself. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that compensation is also warranted for the significant time and trouble the resident spent pursuing the repair, only for the landlord to refuse to complete the work.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that the resident has provided the landlord with the cost of replacing the tiles herself or that the landlord has reimbursed the resident. It is, however, noted that despite this forming part of the resident’s complaint, the landlord failed to comment on its handling of this matter within the response. The resident was evidently under the impression that the tiles would be remedied by the landlord’s contractor for a significant period and its overall handling of the matter was likely to have caused inconvenience.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident had raised concerns about her sash windows in May 2020, and indicated that this had been ongoing for some time but that works had been put on hold as a result of COVID-19. It was reasonable for the works to be placed on hold in early 2020 as landlords were advised to complete only emergency repairs during the initial lockdown restrictions from March 2020. The Government confirmed that landlords could begin to start completing routine repairs from 18 May 2020, with additional guidance published in June 2020.
It is not disputed that there were a significant number of appointments to address the resident’s concerns regarding her sash windows. She continuously reported that the windows would not stay open, were stiff, or got stuck. The landlord has acknowledged that there were an excessive number of appointments between August 2020 and July 2021. It also found that once the work was passed to a different contractor in July 2021, there were ongoing failings in completing the repairs.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence of over 10 appointments between 7 September 2020 and 27 June 2022, prior to the landlord’s final complaint response, and around 5 further appointments between 27 June 2022 and September 2023. The ongoing repairs involved the windows not staying open, and needing to be held open with heavy object, the windows becoming stiff, or not opening and closing.
It was reasonable for the landlord to pass the repair to a new contractor given the initial contractors’ failure to complete a lasting repair between August 2020 and July 2021, and the issues the resident had reported regarding contractor behaviour. However, it is evident that delays continued for a significant length of time following this. The landlord’s records suggest that further works to the windows were found to be required following an appointment in August 2021. While there is a suggestion of an appointment booked for 1 September 2021, the Ombudsman has not been provided with any completion notes for the work and it remains unclear as to whether this was addressed.
It is noted that there was some delay in arranging for the works to be completed following the resident’s reports in December 2021 due to the resident needing to rearrange the appointments on a couple of occasions. However, the evidence also shows that she contacted the landlord on at least 3 occasions in February 2022 to chase the work – this was likely to have caused inconvenience. It is noted that the landlord’s repair records show that work to overhaul the windows was completed again in May 2022 but it is acknowledged that the problem was not fully resolved on that appointment as an additional part was required. The contractor left without completing the work on 27 June 2022.
The window issues remained unresolved at the time of the landlord’s final complaint response on 29 June 2022, and it passed the repair onto a new contractor for the second time. The landlord’s records show that the windows were overhauled in September 2022, but these works failed, and the job was recalled in late September. Following this, further works to overhaul the windows and replace the springs were carried out in November 2022, and the resident reported the same problem with the windows not staying open in December 2022. The repairs again failed and further works to overhaul the windows and replace springs were quoted as required by another contractor in March 2023. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that a further recall of this work was required in September 2023, and it remains unclear as to whether the issue is now resolved.
Despite acknowledging that there had been an excessive number of appointments for the windows within its complaint responses, the landlord failed to provide reassurance to the resident as to how it would ensure that a lasting repair was carried out. It is evident that the landlord did not learn from the resident’s complaint or share relevant information regarding the repair history of the windows with the new contractors as the same work to overhaul the windows, including the sashes, springs and weights, were completed on a number of occasions both during, and following, the complaint. There is a lack of evidence to suggest that the landlord had adequately considered why the repairs continued to fail at any stage or assessed whether alternative steps, such as replacing the windows, were needed in order to provide a lasting resolution for the resident and prevent continuing inconvenience to her.
The landlord’s continued failure to carry out a lasting repair was likely to cause additional inconvenience to the resident who spent significant time and trouble reporting and pursuing the repairs from 2020 onwards. It remains unclear as to whether the issues have now been fully resolved. As such, an order has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident to confirm this and consider actions it is able to take to complete a lasting repair if the window faults are found to be ongoing.
It is unclear when the resident first reported issues with leaks into the property. The landlord has acknowledged that in March 2020, its contractors initially diagnosed the leak as related to plumbing within the building and from the resident’s bathroom. It also concluded that between October 2020 and July 2021, the works were poorly managed by its contractors which led to another contractor needing to start from scratch. It noted that works had been reported as completed by its initial contractor when this was not the case.
The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging its failures in its handling of the roof works. However, the evidence also demonstrates that there was a lack of communication with the resident regarding what was happening with the roof works and scaffolding throughout the complaint which was likely to add to the inconvenience experienced. In addition, while it noted that the scaffolding was removed in July 2021, it failed to comment on the further works that were found to be needed, or provide reassurance as to how it satisfied itself that the additional repairs carried out in August 2021 had provided a resolution.
The resident initially reported internal damage and mould in her property within her communication to the landlord in May 2020. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to suggest that the landlord communicated with the resident or explained any limitations it faced as a result of COVID-19. There is no evidence that the resident made any specific reference to mould again until April 2021 albeit she did pursue the internal works required to plastering during this period.
It was reasonable for the landlord to advise within its final complaint response that the cause of water ingress to the property needed to be resolved in the first instance prior to properly resolving mould issues. It also acknowledged that its failings in handling other repairs ultimately led to a delay in fully resolving the internal issues. It is noted that the internal works required were assessed in May 2021 but there were delays in the work being completed due to another roof leak and further delays until November 2021. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to offer the resident compensation as a contribution towards the cost of decoration as she is noted to have said she wished to do this herself.
Overall, it is not disputed that the resident had a poor experience and that the landlord’s service fell below what was expected due to a lack of management and oversight. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, 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. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging failures within its final complaint response and apologising to the resident. It attempted to put things right by offering £750 compensation which included £100 towards the cost of paint so that the resident was able to complete decoration works herself.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair requests. While its offer of £650 towards the time, trouble, and inconvenience experienced by the resident goes some way to acknowledge the impact of its failures, it is not considered proportionate in view of the length of time issues were ongoing between 2020 and 2022. The Ombudsman has ordered that the landlord pay the resident additional compensation in line with our remedies guidance (available on our website).
The Ombudsman notes that as a resolution to her complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to take responsibility and make changes to ensure others do not experience the same circumstances. She also wanted the landlord to put adequate measures in place to ensure mistakes are learnt from. The Ombudsman has made a number of learning orders for the landlord over the past 12 months based on what we have seen in individual casework. This includes orders for the landlord to review how it manages works involving different teams to ensure ownership of works, how it monitors works so that repairs do not become lost, as well as a review of its approach to damp and mould, record keeping and complaints.
The landlord has engaged with these orders and established points of learning in an attempt to improve its services. In view of the above, we have not made any specific orders for the landlord to improve aspects of its service as part of this case. However, an order has been made below for the landlord to complete a management review of this case to determine whether it now has sufficient strategies in place to prevent similar failings occurring, and whether there are any further points of learning that can be taken.

The resident’s complaint

In this case, the landlord explained that it would usually require residents to raise complaints within 6 months of the event complained about. It acknowledged within its final complaint response that the resident first raised a complaint with its contractor in March 2020 regarding the leak from her toilet. On this basis, it confirmed that it could consider all aspects of the resident’s complaint. This indicates that it had not previously responded to the resident’s concerns through its formal complaints process prior to its responses in May and June 2022.
Despite the resident’s continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her repairs, and acknowledging her concerns as a complaint in June 2020, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that a response was provided in line with its complaints policy or procedure. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated in September 2020. No evidence has been provided to suggest that the landlord confirmed its position to her which was likely to have caused inconvenience and led her to feel that her concerns were not taken seriously.
The landlord advised on 27 April 2021, in response to the resident’s dissatisfaction that several repair issues remained unresolved on 16 April 2021, that no complaint would be raised as the repairs listed were within the timeframes in which it allowed its contractors to attend, and that there had been no service failure. It was unreasonable for the landlord to refuse to treat the complaint formally at this stage, especially given the lack of evidence to suggest that her previous concerns had been responded to, and the length of time some of the repairs had been ongoing. This resulted in the resident needing to spend additional time and trouble pursuing her concerns via her MP, and was a missed opportunity for the landlord to investigate.
The Ombudsman notes that within her communication to her MP in June 2021, the resident raised specific concern that she had been told these were being treated as a complaint, and members of staff had acknowledged delays, but they had not been properly addressed. Despite the landlord’s internal records showing that the complaint was logged on 11 June 2021, and that a response was due by 25 June 2021, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show that a formal response was provided to the resident at any stage prior to 19 May 2022, around 11 months later. The landlord’s records suggest that an “interim” response was provided on 15 June 2021, but the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this communication. In addition, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to suggest that the resident was provided with adequate updates regarding the status of her complaint at any stage in the 11-month period.
This was a significant and unreasonable period, and the landlord has failed to explain the reason for the delay or how it would prevent similar failings occurring in the future within its responses to the resident. The evidence suggests that some of the delay in addressing the complaint was due to staff changing jobs within the business or going on leave. Ultimately, the landlord should have adequate systems in place to ensure that complaints are not “lost” and that responses are issued within its published timescales unless there is a valid reason for delay. Following the resident’s request for her complaint to be escalated on 20 May 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 29 June 2022, which was also outside of its policy timescales. The landlord acted reasonably by informing the resident of the delay in advance.
The landlord acted reasonably within its complaint responses by acknowledging that the resident had raised several complaints, which were not always correctly managed or escalated to the correct team. In addition, it noted that the resident had not been made aware that her complaint handler had changed due to the initial complaint handler being on long term leave. It also acknowledged the delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2.
However, considering that the landlord advised that it would consider all aspects of the resident’s complaint from March 2020 onward, and its acknowledgement that her complaints were not correctly managed or escalated, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that it had taken steps to address its handling of other concerns raised by the resident within her complaint correspondence. This includes her concerns related to her bathroom tiles, internal communal flooring, her bath panel and shower, other communal repairs, and toilet repair issues. The landlord’s failure to do so meant that her concerns were not fully addressed and likely to cause her uncertainty.
While the landlord somewhat acknowledged its failings, it did not demonstrate that it had fully acknowledged the impact of these. It did not comment on how it would prevent similar failings occurring in the future, which would have been appropriate in order to demonstrate that it had learnt from the complaint. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation for the delays in its handling of her complaints is not proportionate in view of the delays or time and trouble caused to the resident. A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to ensure it has adequate systems in place to reallocate complaint tasks and actions where staff are on planned or unplanned leave.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repair issues affecting her property and the communal area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified within this report.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £650 in addition to its previous offer of £950. This brings the total figure to £1,600. The additional compensation is comprised of:
1. £350 in recognition of the time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of various repair issues.
2. £300 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the significant delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
This is to be paid directly to the resident rather than to offset any arrears on her rent account. If the landlord’s previous offer of £950 has not yet been paid, this should be paid directly to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 54g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to complete a management review of this case (within 6 weeks) to identify the reasons for its service failings, consider whether it now has sufficient strategies in place to prevent similar failings occurring, and whether there are any further points of learning that can be taken from this case. A copy of the review should be sent to the Ombudsman and the resident, including an explanation of how it will embed points of learning to improve service delivery.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord ensures that it has adequate systems in place to reallocate complaint tasks and actions where staff are on planned or unplanned leave.
It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm whether there are any outstanding repairs and assigns a point of contact to oversee works through to completion should this be the case.
It is recommended that the landlord reimburses the resident as agreed for work required to the bathroom floor tiles should she provide evidence of the costs she incurred, if it has not already done so.
The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to these recommendations within 4 weeks.