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

Peabody Trust (202316612)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316612

Peabody Trust

31 May 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a leak from the roof, and subsequent repairs.
    2. Request for new windows.
    3. Request for front door repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The building is a Victorian terraced house which has been converted into 2 flats. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom, second-floor flat with his wife and 2 children. The building has a rear terrace that could provide access to the roof. For the purpose of this report, the resident and his wife are herein both referred to as ‘the resident’.
  2. For additional context, the resident was a tenant of another housing association which merged with his current landlord in 2017. He submits that when he moved to the property in 2016 he was told the windows would be replaced, and that his previous landlord submitted a planning application to the council to replace the windows, but the application was not actioned.
  3. It is not clear when, or how often, the resident enquired when the windows would be replaced, but the landlord wrote to him on 23 December 2021 and said this was due to happen as part of the 2022/2023 stock improvement programme/cyclical work. However, it said the dates were subject to change and it would contact him.
  4. The resident reported that some of the wooden window frames had cracked, had rotten seals, and the windows had damp and mould under the cills, on 18 March 2022. The landlord raised work orders for a damp and mould wash and repairs to the frames until the cyclical work was due. It is not clear exactly when, but the landlord’s repair log noted the work was completed.
  5. There were no further issues until 12 September 2022 when the resident reported water in the bedroom and the landing from a roof leak. The landlord raised a repair with a target completion date of 11 November 2022, and scheduled its contractor to attend on 27 September 2022. However, on the day of the appointment, the contractor cancelled and rescheduled it to 10 October 2022 due to an unwell operative.
  6. On 10 October 2022 the contractor rescheduled the repair again to 26 October 2022 due to wet weather conditions, and noted the resident was not available any sooner. Later that day the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord. He said 2 repair appointments had been cancelled and he wanted the contractor to attend that week as he was able to provide access then. He said he had complained about damp and a leak from the same roof area a year prior, and asked why the contractor could not have attended once the rain stopped.
  7. The contractor attended on 26 October 2022 but could not fit its equipment through the property to access the terrace at the rear of the building to get to the roof. It is not clear who it asked, but the contractor requested contact details for the resident in the ground floor property (the neighbour) on 28 October 2022 in an attempt to gain access to the rear of the property and have sufficient room for its repair equipment.
  8. It is not clear exactly when or how the neighbour’s contact details were provided, but the contractor called them on 9 November 2022 and arranged to attend on 24 November 2022.
  9. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 November 2022 and apologised for the cancelled and unsuccessful repair appointments. It said its contractor was scheduled to attend on 24 November 2022 and, despite it not having issued a stage 1 complaint response, said the resident could escalate the complaint to stage 2 after that date.
  10. The contractor attended on 24 November 2022 and said scaffolding was required so could not complete the repair. The resident emailed the landlord 3 days later and said he had suspended his rent payment until the roof repair had been completed.
  11. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 6 December 2022 and asked whether scaffolding had been put up, and for pictures of damage caused by damp and mould from the roof leak. The resident responded later in the day and said since he moved in he had had multiple disputes with the landlord and requests for new windows had been ignored (no evidence of these historic requests has been provided to this Service).
  12. An internal landlord email the following day noted “no progress had been made since its contractor requested scaffolding” and it raised a new repair job for scaffolding to access the roof. On 14 December 2022, the landlord unsuccessfully attempted to reallocate the repair to an alternative contractor that completed roof repairs via abseiling, as no scaffold was available until the new year.
  13. The resident completed the landlord’s condensation, damp and mould report form on 16 December 2022 and said: the property had condensation, damp and mould all over; none of the windows worked properly; all the windows had condensation; there was mould under cills (despite regular cleaning); and the windows were drafty, rattled when car doors slammed, and could not have curtains because of the mould. He also said the roof leak had not been repaired and no complaint response had been sent.
  14. The landlord emailed the resident on 20 December 2022 and said the complaint was under investigation and the damp and mould reporting form had been forwarded to the complaints officer. In an email of 30 December 2022, the complaints officer confirmed receipt of the form to the resident, but simply advised that the exterior of the property was due to be upgraded as part of planned maintenance to the building in 2022/2023 and it would be in contact soon. It said when the surveyor attends, the resident could highlight the window condition so they “can be replaced as part of the external works.”
  15. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 January 2023 and said he would continue to withhold rent until it confirmed when the external work and window replacement would take place. He said he had been told new windows would be installed 7 years ago and he reiterated that the frames were rotten, the bedroom ceiling was black with mould from water penetration from the roof and the roof repair had not been completed.
  16. The following day an internal landlord email enquired when the windows would be replaced, and chased the contractor as to when the scaffolding would go up.
  17. It is not clear exactly when the resident reported issues with the front door, but the landlord raised a work order to repair it on 4 January 2023 with a target completion date of 1 February 2023. It raised a further work order for the window frames, as the windows would not close without force, on 13 January 2023.
  18. An internal landlord note from 25 January 2023 said scaffolding was due to go up that day and its contractor was due to attend on 1 February 2023 to complete the roof repairs. 
  19. A contractor attended on 3 February 2023 and repaired the front door. It noted the resident had dried clothes on a radiator near to a closed bedroom window and the window was “soaking wet with condensation everywhere.” The contractor was able to open the window and gave the resident a leaflet about condensation. The contractor took pictures which showed mould underneath the window cill.
  20. It is not clear what happened with scaffolding due to go up on 25 January 2023 or the repair appointment booked for 1 February 2023, but on 8 February 2023 the landlord booked another appointment for the roof repair with the abseiling roof repair contractor for 15 February 2023.
  21. The landlord emailed the resident on 10 February 2023 to confirm that appointment. It said it had escalated and reviewed the request to replace the windows but they were due to be replaced in the next 3 years, so it would not take further action now. The resident replied and said he had been told the same thing 3 years prior, and submitted that the mould and condensation had affected his family’s mental and general health.
  22. The landlord emailed the resident on 17 February 2023 when it said:
    1. Its contractor attended 2 days earlier and found the bedroom leak had been caused by cracked pointing between the roof ridge tiles, and the landing leak by cracked pointing in the coping stones.
    2. It had completed repairs and raised follow on work to redecorate areas damaged by damp and mould following the roof leaks.
    3. The window replacement had been deferred for 3 years.
  23. The resident replied the same day and said he wanted to redecorate the 2 rooms, and there were still problems with mould as anti-mould paint had not worked.
  24. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 February 2023, as follows:
    1. It had originally tried to re-allocate the repair to an abseiling roof repair contractor that did not require scaffolding, but had been unsuccessful. Its original contractor could not access the rear of the property to put the scaffolding up, so it allocated the repair back to the abseiling roof repair company.
    2. There had been delays undertaking repairs to the roof, but they were now complete.
    3. The windows were not due to be replaced for 3 years.
    4. Repairs to the front door were completed on 3 February 2023.
    5. It would pay £450 compensation (£400 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the delays repairing the roof and £50 decorating allowance calculated as £25 for 2 rooms affected by the roof leak).
    6. The compensation would be credited to his rent account as it was in arrears and if he remained dissatisfied, he could escalate the complaint to stage 2.
  25. The resident requested the complaint be escalated around 7 April 2023, however no details of the escalation have been provided to this Service.
  26. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 17 April 2023 and said it would aim to respond within 15 working days of the date of escalation. The resident chased an update on 5 May 2023 and the landlord responded that it needed more time to investigate due to the volume of escalations it had received. It said it would respond by 25 May 2023 and apologised for any inconvenience.
  27. On 24 May 2023 the landlord requested pictures of the windows from the resident. An internal email showed it arranged an urgent surveyor appointment as the windows were not due to be replaced for 3 years, but it acknowledged they may need to be replaced sooner. The resident raised further issues with the front door and said it was a “really heavy door and closed super–fast.”
  28. The landlord issued its stage 2 response the following day, as follows:
    1. The repairs to the front door had been completed, but the resident had raised a further issue which it would raise a follow on repair for.
    2. Windows are usually replaced as part of its stock improvement/cyclical work. However, after it had received pictures from the resident, it had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the condition of the windows and determine whether they should be replaced now, or whether further repairs were required.
    3. Although the damp and mould was a separate issue not investigated as part of the complaints process, it would also ask the surveyor to assess the property for damp and mould at the same time as the windows.
    4. It apologised again for the delays completing the roof repair.
    5. It had provided feedback to its contractors to improve how it dealt with similar matters in the future.
    6. It increased the compensation offer in line with its compensation policy (in respect of the complaints under investigation here) to £1,180 made up of:
      1. £600 for time, trouble and inconvenience (the maximum compensation for extensive disruption).
      2. £250 to acknowledge its poor complaint handling.
      3. £80 for 8 missed contractor appointments.
      4. £50 towards redecorating.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The landlord’s contractor attended and adjusted the front door on 1 June 2023  which stopped the door from slamming.
  2. The surveyor attended and sent the inspection report to the landlord which recommended window repairs on 18 June 2023. However it did acknowledge that it may be more cost effective to replace the stairs/hallway window. A contractor attended on 1 August 2023 to carry out the repairs but reported he was asked to leave by the resident as the surveyor had not recommended new windows. A second survey was conducted in September 2023 which also recommended window repairs. Internal landlord notes from September and October 2023 noted that the resident would not accept further repairs as he still wanted them replaced.
  3. Since the stage 2 response further issues have been reported to the landlord. The resident has initiated the pre-action protocol for disrepair claims in January 2024 and is in contact with the landlord in that regard, although the Ombudsman understands no legal proceedings have yet been issued.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told this Service about the impact the living conditions have had on his and his family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt these comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the family’s health (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident has considered making a personal injury claim as part of the legal disrepair claim. While this Service cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident submits that he has reported problems with the windows since he moved to the property in 2016. However, there is no evidence of a formal complaint being made on this matter until October 2022. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of the issues arising, so that the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme). Therefore, this investigation is focused on events from October 2021 onwards.
  3. Throughout the course of his contact with both the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has raised concerns about a number of additional issues within the property, including the fire alarm, boiler, insulation, internal doors, and damp and mould. Whilst these points have been responded to by the landlord at various stages of its communication with the resident, there is no evidence of them being raised consistently through the full complaints process. As a result, the landlord has not had a proper opportunity to investigate and resolve them through the operation of that process.
  4. Therefore, these matters are not considered in this investigation (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme). Instead, the report focuses solely on the issues which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, and makes reference to damp and mould only in so far as it relates to the window and roof repairs. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of any other specific issues, he should consider raising a new complaint or including them in any subsequent legal proceedings.

The resident’s reports of a leak from the roof and subsequent repairs.

  1. The landlord originally raised the roof repair as a programmed repair on 12 September 2022. Its policy says programmed repairs should be completed within 60 calendar days.
  2. It is evident that multiple issues contributed to delays with the roof repair which caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident. There were initially external factors beyond the landlord’s control and there are different accounts regarding the resident’s availability to provide access after the second cancelled appointment. However, regardless of the resident’s availability, delays could have been avoided if the contractor had requested scaffolding when it attended on 26 October 2022.
  3. Following the unsuccessful repair appointment on that date the contractor requested contact details for the neighbour. It took 12 calendar days to contact the neighbour, and it was a further 14 calendar days before it attended. It is not clear whether some of the delay was caused by the neighbour’s availability to provide access, but it ultimately meant the contractor did not return until 24 November 2022, almost a month later. This delay was not reasonable as the resident had already had 2 appointments cancelled and a third unsuccessful appointment. It would have been good practice for the landlord to insist the contractor prioritise the repair, or consider reallocating the repair to the abseiling contractor at an earlier date.
  4. There was a breakdown in communication between the landlord and its contractor following the appointment on 24 November 2022. It is not clear who was responsible for requesting scaffolding, or indeed whether the contractor informed the landlord scaffolding was required. However, the landlord did not take any action until 7 December 2022, another 10 working days later, when it raised a new repair and request for scaffolding which caused further delays.
  5. The landlord attempted to progress the repair by reallocating the job to the abseiling roof repair contractor, but this was not until 14 December 2022, 93 days after the roof leak had been reported. There is no evidence to confirm why the abseiling roof contractor was unable to attend initially, but it did eventually attend and complete the work without scaffolding on 15 February 2023. The landlord could have taken action much earlier in this regard which could have avoided some of the delays.
  6. The landlord’s lack of urgency and proactive involvement in the repairs process ultimately left the resident with a leaking roof that caused damp and mould for an unreasonable length of time. The roof repair was not completed until 15 February 2023, 156 days after it had been reported, and 96 days after the target completion date. This was more than double the maximum timescale for a programmed repair as stated in its policy, and represents a failing. The delays left the resident feeling extremely frustrated and that he had no other option but to cancel his rent payment in an effort to get a response from the landlord.
  7. During this time, the resident was living with the ongoing expectation of the roof repair being done imminently, the disappointment of cancelled/failed appointments, and the uncertainty caused by a lack of communication and updates. This caused him significant distress and inconvenience, affected his enjoyment of the property, and ultimately led to a breakdown in the landlord/resident relationship.
  8. Where the Ombudsman has identified failings in the landlord’s response to the substantive issue, it is then for this Service to consider how the landlord responded to those failings through the operation of its complaints process. In this case, the landlord took the opportunity of the formal complaint to fully investigate the situation, review its response, and explain the actions it had taken to progress the roof repairs. It ultimately accepted and acknowledged that there had been failures leading to unacceptable delays and that this had caused detriment to the resident. It apologised for the delays and time, trouble and inconvenience caused, and offered £600 compensation, plus further compensation for missed appointments in line with its policy.
  9. This demonstrated that the landlord took the complaint seriously and sought to ‘put things right’ in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. The amount of compensation offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for an issue where a resident has been significantly impacted and put to time and trouble. Taking account of all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s response to the complaint (and the identified failings) was appropriate and proportionate, so a finding is made that the landlord had offered redress to the resident which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Request for new windows

  1. The landlords repairs policy says it aims to complete non-urgent repairs (next available appointment) within 28 calendar days, or programmed repairs (work that requires additional time) within 60 calendar days. The landlord initially set out its position regarding the windows in December 2021 which managed the resident’s expectations. It then acted reasonably, and in line with its policy, in March 2022 and arranged for window repairs to be carried out. There is no evidence to confirm precisely when the repairs were carried out, but there is also no evidence of any further requests for repairs being made until December 2022, indicating that those repairs were adequate at that time.
  2. However, there is no evidence the landlord took any action or raised any repairs in response to the December 2022 request. Instead, it told the resident to raise the window condition with the surveyor when it attended prior to planned exterior work to the property, but did not indicate when that might be. Whilst the evidence showed the landlord enquired internally as to when the windows would be replaced, this was only after the resident said he would withhold rent until it confirmed an installation date. The landlord could have done more here, and should have either arranged further repairs or a surveyor to inspect the windows given the reported poor condition.
  3. Following a further window repair raised in January 2023, the landlord attended in line with its repairs policy. It noted the bedroom window could open and provided the resident with a condensation leaflet. After the landlord informed the resident the windows were due to be replaced within the next 3 years, it is not clear what action, if any, it took to respond to the resident’s points regarding damp and mould and the condition of the windows. It would have been good practice to arrange for a surveyor to inspect the windows at this juncture.
  4. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s disappointment and frustration caused by the landlord deferring the window replacement. However, it is also accepted that landlords have limited budgets and a responsibility to manage its resources effectively. It is therefore common practice for windows to be repaired rather than replaced wherever possible and the landlord did complete repairs in line with its policy.
  5. No documentation has been provided to support the resident’s position that the windows needed replacing during the timeframe covered by this investigation. In the absence of such evidence, it was appropriate for the landlord to complete repairs and it did so in a timely manner. The decision to not replace the windows was acceptable at the time, and in the circumstances that it was made, so a finding of no maladministration is made.
  6. However, in the interests of improving the landlord/resident relationship and avoiding a prolonged dispute, involving the withholding of rent, denied access for repairs and further correspondence on the issue, this Service has considered the next steps in this case. It is noted that more recent surveys, whilst confirming that repairs were sufficient, acknowledged the deteriorating condition of the windows. The landlord has also confirmed that the windows are due to be replaced reasonably soon, within the next 3 years. As a result, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider whether it may be in the interests of both parties to bring the window replacement forward.

Front door repairs

  1. There is no evidence to confirm exactly when the resident first raised issues with the front door, but the landlord raised a next available appointment repair on 4 January 2023. The repair was completed 30 days later, 2 days over its policy target timescale. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it aims to make sure appointment slots are convenient for residents where possible. There is no evidence to confirm why the appointment was 2 days outside of its timescale but, in any case, this was not a significant delay and did not have a substantial impact on the resident.
  2. The resident raised further issues with the door in a call to the landlord on 24 May 2023, and it attended promptly to complete further repairs. The landlord’s response was reasonable and was only outside of its policy timescale by 2 days. It therefore responded appropriately to the resident’s reports in relation to the front door, and there was no maladministration in that regard.  

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process which says new complaints are logged within 5 working days as stage 1 and a response will be provided within 10 working days unless an extension is agreed with the resident. All requests for stage 2 must be received within 10 working days of the resident receiving the stage 1 response, and the stage 2 response will be sent within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 10 October 2022, but the stage 1 response was not sent until 28 February 2023, 98 working days later. The landlord told the resident he could only escalate his complaint to stage 2 after the repair appointment booked for 24 November 2022 despite having not issued a stage 1 response at this point. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says a complaint response must be sent when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. However, the landlord appeared to want to wait until the roof repairs had been completed before issuing its stage 1 response. In doing so it not only missed the chance to try and resolve the issue at the earliest opportunity, but also unreasonably delayed the resident from escalating to stage 2 and bringing the complaint to this Service, which was a failing.
  3. The stage 1 response apologised for the length of time it had taken up to that point for the roof to be repaired and offered £400 compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident. This demonstrated that the landlord took the complaint seriously and sought to ‘put things right’ in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. However, the response did not acknowledge the actual impact and frustration caused to the resident, and therefore did not do enough to put things right at the earliest opportunity, which was a failing.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy says there are some things it will not deal with via its complaints procedure, including if the resident has requested a service or reported a repair. The resident submitted a damp, mould and condensation form to the landlord prior to the stage 1 response being issued, but the landlord did not mention or address the damp and mould report the resident had submitted. Instead, it appeared to dismiss the report along with the window issues and indicated these would be dealt with as part of planned maintenance/cyclical work. It would have been good practice for the landlord to clarify with the resident whether he wanted to raise a complaint regarding damp and mould, and it was only in the stage 2 response the damp and mould was addressed.
  5. The stage 2 response was thorough and clearly dealt with all issues raised, but it was sent approximately 31 working days after the resident requested to escalate the complaint, outside of its policy timeframe. The resident also incurred further inconvenience chasing for updates. The response apologised for the poor complaint handling and the stage 1 and 2 complaints not being acknowledged within its published guidelines, but it did not specifically address the delays in issuing the substantive responses. It offered £250 to apologise for its complaint handling and increased the time, trouble and inconvenience payment by £200.
  6. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation, and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. With regard to its complaint handling, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which resolved the complaint satisfactorily. As a result, a finding of reasonable redress is made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
    1. Handing of roof repairs.
    2. Complaint Handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Request for new windows.
    2. Request for front door repairs.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord to:
    1. Consider whether it may be in the interests of both parties to bring the window replacement forward and confirm its position to the resident.
    2. Consider whether the abseiling roof contractor would be more time and cost effective overall for future repairs, than its contractor which requires scaffolding.
    3. Contact the resident and pay the compensation offered (if it has not already done so), either directly to the resident’s bank account or crediting his rent account (whichever he would prefer).