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

Peabody Trust (202308856)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308856

Peabody Trust

19 December 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

a.     Reports about repairs needed to the communal gutter.

b.     Queries about the cost of scaffolding.

c.      Formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident resides in the property as a leaseholder under a shared ownership scheme with the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is part of a purpose-built, 4-storey block of flats and is situated on the fourth floor. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident but she has shared with this Service that she suffers from peripheral neuropathy and high blood pressure.
  2. In February 2022 a storm caused damage to the resident’s building, including the gutter, which was ripped away from the wall above the resident’s window. As a result, water leaked into the property when the window was open. The landlord logged a repair job for this on 4 May 2022. In September 2022 its contractor attended to clear the gutter and repair a joint in it. In October 2022 it erected scaffolding so that it could investigate and conduct further repairs.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 17 January 2023. She said she had reported the damage on numerous occasions but the landlord had failed to repair the gutter despite erecting scaffolding. She said it had not updated her about the delays and when it would commence work. She noted that the scaffolding was restricting natural sunlight entering her home. She was also concerned that she was incurring charges for it on a weekly basis. She asked for clarity on the bill and whether it would pass the costs on to her through her service charge. She said she would not pay excessive costs due to any delays on the landlord’s part.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 February 2023. It confirmed that it had completed the works in January 2023 and apologised that it had taken longer than anticipated. It said it was mindful of the need to update residents with its progress on repairs.
  5. The resident responded the following day and said the response was ‘wholly inadequate’. She said it had failed to explain why there had been delays, why it had not updated her, and what the costs were. She followed this up with an email on 3 April 2023 and asked the landlord how it intended to improve its service. She felt she should not be liable for any costs for the period the scaffolding was up and it did not progress the works.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 19 July 2023. It acknowledged that it had failed to keep her updated and outlined the measures it was taking to improve its service. It said it was reviewing its repairs policies and procedures and was considering using a larger pool of contractors to reduce delays. It was restructuring its repairs team and giving officers smaller patches of properties to oversee, to ensure accountability.
  7. It said the resident’s request that it adjust her service charge was ‘reasonable’ and it would contact her to discuss this. It also acknowledged its delay in responding to her complaint. It offered a total of £250 compensation, comprised of:

a.     £100 for time, trouble, and inconvenience due to its failure complete the repairs within a reasonable timeframe.

b.     £150 for delays at both stages of her complaint.

  1. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her complaint and does not feel its remedy accurately reflects the detriment caused to her. She said the landlord’s handling of the issue has caused her stress and anxiety and had a negative impact on her health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her complaint, the resident queried the cost of the works and her liability for any additional charge due to the scaffolding being up for an extended period. The landlord outlined the costs for the works as part of the resident’s service charge in her annual statement of September 2023.
  2. This Service cannot consider whether the costs passed on to the resident were appropriate, nor require that the landlord adjust the service charge. Under paragraph 42.d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints concerning the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of a rent or service charge increase.
  3. If the resident wishes to challenge the costs included in their service charge and seek recovery, she may do so by making an application to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). While this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside the scope of this investigation, it will consider the landlord’s response to her queries about the cost of the works.
  4. The resident feels that the landlord’s handling of the issue has impacted on her physical and emotional health and has exacerbated her existing health conditions. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and any health condition. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, we have considered any general distress and inconvenience which she experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of repairs to the gutter

  1. Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building and ‘all external parts’. This is subject to payment of rent and service charges by the leaseholder. The landlord further clarifies its responsibility for repairs to the roof and gutter in an appendix to its repairs policy.
  2. Under its responsive repairs policy, the landlord categorises repairs according to their priority. It aims to repair non-urgent issues, those which present no risk to the resident or customer, within 28 days. Where there is an immediate danger or serious damage to property it will repair issues or make them safe within 4 hours. ‘Specialist works’, which are complex or require a specialist contractor, are to be completed within 60 days.
  3. The landlord’s repair log shows that it first logged and raised a repair for the gutter on 4 May 2022. The log also shows that a neighbour had reported damage to the roof in April 2022 and it merged these issues under the same job.
  4. The resident said she reported the damaged gutter to the landlord ‘numerous times’. It is not clear whether this included occasions prior to May 2022. The Ombudsman notes there was a gap between the storm causing damage to the roof and gutter in February 2022 and the landlord logging a repair in April/May 2022. However, in the absence of evidence showing that the resident reported the issue prior to May 2022, we cannot find fault with the landlord.
  5. Despite the job being for both the roof and gutter repairs, the log suggests a contractor attended and only completed repairs to the roof. The job notes are brief and it is not possible to establish when the contractor attended and why it did not resolve the guttering issue at this time. It is not clear whether this was an oversight by the landlord or its contractor.
  6. The landlord raised a further job on 1 September 2022 and its contractor attended on 29 September 2022 to clear the gutter and fix a loose joint in it. This job was reported as being ‘fully completed’, but the landlord raised a further job on 6 October 2022 to investigate and repair the gutter, for which scaffolding was required.
  7. There is disparity here and it is not clear whether the jobs raised in September and October 2022 related to problems with distinct parts or aspects of the guttering. Regardless, as of October 2022, works were outstanding to the gutter above the resident’s window.
  8. The landlord should keep clear and accurate repair logs/records to allow it to effectively track progress on repairs and to ensure it sees jobs through to completion. This also provides an audit trail and enables this Service to assess the actions it took. A recommendation has been made to this effect below.
  9. The landlord had to erect scaffolding to progress the works. Its records suggest that the cost of the works may have been subject to the Section 20 consultation process. The landlord has a legal duty to consult in advance with leaseholders who own property in a block that will be affected by repairs with costs above £250 per resident. The consultation period following a Section 20 notice is 30 days. Scaffolding could also be considered ‘specialist’ work. It was therefore reasonable for it to take up to 60 days to complete repairs on this basis.
  10. Regardless, it took the landlord nearly 5 months from when it first logged the repair until it erected scaffolding on 28 October 2022. This was an unreasonable delay and there is no evidence it updated the resident throughout this period. The resident said she was unable to open her window due to water ingress. Her frustration that the works remained outstanding was exacerbated by the landlord’s poor communication.
  11. The landlord erected scaffolding but did not immediately commence repairs. The landlord’s contractor attended on 22 December 2022 to scope the works but it was only on 19 January 2022, after 12 weeks and following the resident’s complaint, that it started the works. Again, throughout this period the landlord provided the resident with no update or explanation for the delays. This caused her ongoing frustration and the inconvenience of having to complain to progress the repairs. She also reported that the scaffolding was a nuisance and made her feel vulnerable for longer than was necessary.
  12. In its final response the landlord acknowledged the delays and explained that it had raised the repairs to its contractor who had failed to complete them in a satisfactory timescale. It had then passed the repairs on to another contractor who completed them and removed the scaffolding in February 2023. It acknowledged that it had failed to put things right for her and had not adequately updated her. It also appropriately outlined the measures it was taking to address issues in its repairs service. It acknowledged that some of its contractors were not meeting expectations and it was reviewing contracts and its contracting process.
  13. It was fair of the landlord to accept that it had failed the resident and to explain how it was working to address issues in its repairs process. It also offered remedy in the form of compensation. However, it should have acknowledged the full extent of its delays. The resident had reported the issue in April 2022 and it had taken 9 months in total for it to complete the works. While it was reliant on its contractors, the landlord was ultimately responsible for oversight of the works. It was unreasonable that took until October 2022 for it to erect the scaffolding and a further 12 weeks for it to then commence works. For this reason, the Ombudsman finds service failure.
  14. The landlord’s offer of £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience provided some remedy but further compensation is required for it to put things right for the resident. It should offer a further £100 in recognition of the distress and frustration she experienced due to the lengthy period in which it failed to progress the repairs. This brings the total compensation for its handling of works needed to the gutter to £200. This reflects the level of detriment caused to the resident in line with its compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance.

Response to queries about costs

  1. The resident raised concerns about the cost of the scaffolding in her complaint. Based on conversations with the contractor, she believed there was a flat fee of £1,000 for the scaffolding for the first 6 weeks and a cost of between 10% and 20% of that amount for each subsequent week. She asked the landlord for clarity on the total costs and who would pay them.
  2. The landlord did not address this in its initial complaint response, despite defining it as the resolution she was seeking. Nor did it respond to subsequent emails from the resident about this on 22 February 2022, 3 April 2022, and 19 May 2022. Within her complaint and correspondence on the matter, the resident was clearly anxious and eager for clarity. It was a failure of the landlord that it did not provide this, or even respond.
  3. It was not until the landlord’s stage 2 complaint that it acknowledged her request for an adjustment of the service charge based on its delays and said the relevant team would be in touch with her to discuss this ‘outside of the complaints process’. The resident expressed concern that this meant it was not dealing with her request formally, but it said it would keep the complaint ‘open’ until it had done so, which is fair.
  4. It contacted her on 17 August 2023 and confirmed that there was a flat fee for the scaffolding and it would not charge her based on the length of time it was up. While this provided assurance, the resident had asked for clarity on several occasions as far back as January 2023. It was unreasonable that it took the landlord 7 months to provide this information.
  5. It did not provide the total cost to the resident until the following month when it sent her an annual breakdown of her service charge. The landlord may not have been aware of the final costs prior to this point but, should this have been the case, it should have communicated this to the resident.
  6. The annual breakdown specified costs of £3,000 against the job it had raised on 6 October 2022, which included scaffolding. The breakdown also listed other charges for associated works to the roof and guttering and divided the total cost amongst the leaseholders. The resident’s share was £732.66.
  7. The resident considers the costs of £3,000 to be more than she anticipated. She would like further clarity on whether this was the full cost of the scaffolding and whether it constituted a fixed fee, or whether it included a weekly rate. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the accuracy or appropriateness of this amount, nor how it calculated the costs. However, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to provide further clarity on this figure below.
  8. Overall, the landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s queries about the scaffolding costs, missing several opportunities to do so. This caused the resident anxiety and frustration. For this reason, the Ombudsman finds service failure. The landlord should pay the resident £75 for frustration caused by its failure to address her queries promptly. This amount is in line with its compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a complaints policy which outlines its standards and timeframes for complaint handling. According to the policy, the landlord will log complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It will respond to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. These timeframes align with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 17 January 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint 12 working days later on 2 February 2023. It is not clear when it logged the complaint but the Code requires that it acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days so this was a delay.
  3. The landlord provided its formal response after a further 13 working days, on 21 February 2023, which constituted another short delay. The resident described the response as ‘wholly inadequate’ and felt it had failed to address her concerns. The Ombudsman agrees that the landlord missed an opportunity to fully consider the resident’s concerns and put things right for her. Its response was brief and it did not explain why it had delayed and why it had failed to communicate effectively. Nor did it address her queries about the cost of the works.
  4. The Code sets out requirements for landlords with regards their written responses to complaints. The response should address all points in the complaint and provide information on how the resident can escalate the complaint, which it also failed to do.
  5. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction the following day. She was unaware that she could escalate her complaint and that this should have triggered a stage 2 investigation by the landlord. There is no evidence the landlord logged this as an escalation request and it did not respond to the resident’s email. The resident sought advice from this Service who informed her that she could escalate the complaint, which she did again on 3 April 2023.
  6. The landlord responded the following day and said it had passed this on to the complaint handler who dealt with her stage 1 complaint and it would confirm how it was progressing the complaint. While this was acknowledgement of the resident’s dissatisfaction, it did not confirm that it had escalated the complaint.
  7. The complaint handler contacted the resident on 16 May 2023 and said they were looking at the complaint again. They asked for her availability for a call on 29 May 2023. The resident responded and said she simply wanted a response to her complaint by 26 May 2023. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this email.
  8. Again, the resident had to contact this Service for support in progressing the complaint. On 20 June 2023 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide its stage 2 response by 18 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation and provided its final response on 19 July 2023.
  9. Overall, the resident waited a total of 100 working days for the landlord to issue its stage 2 response, which was unreasonable. During this time it missed several opportunities to formally log the escalation and it was only with the intervention of this Service that it progressed the complaint. It also failed to communicate effectively with the resident on her complaint.
  10. The landlord accepted its failings in its final response and acknowledged the frustration that it had caused the resident. It offered her £150 compensation as a remedy. This was in accordance with its compensation policy which states that payments in this region are appropriate where it has failed to follow its policies and procedures, causing inconvenience and effort on the resident’s part. It also provided assurance that it was working to address unnecessary delays through the expansion of its customer experience team.
  11. Considering the measures taken by the landlord to put things right, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress. The landlord should pay the resident the compensation it offered in its final response if it has not already done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:

a.     Repairs to the communal gutter.

b.     The resident’s queries about the cost of scaffolding.

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Pay the resident a total of £275 compensation comprised of:

  1. £200 for failings in its handling of repairs to the communal gutter. The landlord may deduct the £100 it has already offered if this has been paid.
  2. £75 for failings in its handling of the resident’s queries about the cost of scaffolding.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:

a.     If it has not already done so, pay the resident £150 compensation for delays and failures in its complaint handling. Please note the reasonable redress finding is made based on this sum being paid to the resident as it recognised service failings which required remedy.

b.     Review this Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). Going forward it should ensure that it keeps complete and auditable records showing what action it has taken in relation to repairs.

c.      Provide further clarity to the resident about how the costs of the scaffolding and works to the gutter were comprised and confirm whether there was a flat rate or weekly charge.