Peabody Trust (202317484)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317484

Peabody Trust

27 March 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property and the decant of the resident.
The Ombudsman has also looked at the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident’s property was a 2-bed first floor flat and she lived there with her husband and 2 adult daughters. The landlord was aware that the resident and her husband are both disabled. The resident’s daughters and a legal charity have both represented her to the landlord. For readability, this report refers to ‘the resident’ throughout.
The landlord decanted the resident and her family on 30 May 2021 due to a sewage leak in the property. A decant is a temporary move for a resident organised by a landlord. On 20 April 2022 the resident moved back into her property.
The resident complained to the landlord on 26 August 2022. She was unhappy with the repairs and the length of time she had been decanted.
The landlord replied at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 2 December 2022. It apologised and offered the resident £700 compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 13 January 2023. The landlord replied at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 12 April 2023. It increased the compensation offer to £1,600.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to this Service. She is seeking an increased offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told us the situation had a detrimental impact on her and her husband’s health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property and the decant of the resident

On 30 May 2021 the landlord decanted the resident and her family due to a sewage leak in the bathroom of the property. The resident said the first hotel booked for her decant was not suitable as she could not access the shower facilities. The resident also said there were no cooking or washing facilities.
The resident was decanted to a second hotel by the landlord on 10 June 2021. It told the resident breakfast was not provided due to covid restrictions. The resident told us the facilities in the hotel room consisted of:
1. A mini kitchenette with a microwave, sink, a small oven and hob.
2. A small fridge with a freezer shelf.
3. A washing machine.
On 7 April 2022 the resident was decanted to a third hotel. The resident told us this hotel had a hob and mini fridge in the room and communal laundry facilities. She was not able to bring any mobility aids into the hotel room due to its size. The resident was able to move back into her property on 20 April 2022 which was around 11 months after the landlord had decanted her. The landlord paid the resident and her family a £15 per person food allowance. This was a total of £60 per day during the decant.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete “specialist works” that are complex in nature within 60 calendar days.
The landlord’s decant policy states it will do the following:
1. Decant a resident when a property is uninhabitable.
2. Keep residents informed on the progress of works to their property.
3. Pay a food allowance for residents staying in hotel accommodation of £15 per person per day where there is no access to a kitchen.
4. Arrange and pay for the removal, storage and return of the resident’s possessions.
5. Decant residents to hotels only when there is no other alternative and should be for a maximum of 4 weeks. If a decant is to last longer than 4 weeks, then it will need a different solution “as soon as possible.”
6. Hotel accommodation will be given when there are no other options available. Kitchen and laundry facilities should be provided in hotel accommodation where possible.
On 26 August 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. She said she was not happy with the following:
1. Outstanding repairs at to the property.
2. The property had not been cleaned by the landlord before they were returned.
3. Damaged and missing items from the property.
4. The length of time she was decanted and the lack of communication from the landlord during that time.
5. Her health had been affected by the decant and repairs to the property.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its internal complaint procedure on 2 December 2022. It said the following:
1. The sewage leak was due to a build-up of grease and wipes in the building’s system.
2. The landlord’s communication to the resident was poor and the repairs “took longer than anticipated.”
3. The resident should make a claim on her contents insurance for damaged or missing items if she had a policy.
4. To make a claim for personal injury she should contact its internal insurance team.
5. The landlord would “remind” its contractors of the timescales for repairs.
6. It apologised to the resident and for “time, trouble and inconvenience caused” offered £700 to her.
The landlord’s compensation policy states:
1. For distress and inconvenience, it can award:
  1. £600 to £1,000 for a medium to long service failure and a high or long impact.
  2. Above £1,000 for service failure that was “significant” and caused serious short- or long-term impact to the resident.
2. It will not compensate for energy costs incurred during repairs at a property.
The evidence shows the landlord decanted the resident following a sewage leak at her property. It paid a £60 per day food allowance for herself, her husband, and her adult children. The landlord also paid for storage of the resident’s belongings. These actions were in line with its decant policy. In the stage 1 response the landlord also signposted the resident to its insurance team for her claim of personal injury. These actions by the landlord were appropriate.
However, the reply at stage 1 lacked empathy and failed to identify the following:
1. Two of the hotel bookings had not been suitable for the resident’s needs.
2. No alternative to hotel accommodation had been offered during the 11 months the resident was decanted.
3. Why the repairs took 9 months longer than the timeframe stated in its repairs policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 10 January 2023. She said:
1. The landlord failed to have the property “professionally cleaned” before the resident and her family returned. She said they had to clean the property themselves.
2. In the bathroom:
  1. The toilet frame used by the resident and the anti-slip floor coating had been removed and not replaced.
  2. The changes made to the handrail and shower curtain in the bathroom were unsuitable for her needs.
  3. The removal of disability aides had caused the resident to fall. She was receiving treatment from a chiropractor at an ongoing cost to the resident.
3. A utility bill of £106 had been incurred for the electricity usage during the landlord’s repair works on the property.
4. She was unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord. The resident said it paid for breakfast for other families decanted from her building. This was at a cost of £10 per person per breakfast. The resident wanted the landlord to back pay the cost of breakfast during the time they were decanted.
The landlord replied to the resident on the same day. It said its offer of compensation was fair and it was not willing to increase it. The landlord reiterated the steps the resident could take for damaged items or for a personal injury claim. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if she would like to escalate her complaint. On the 13 January 2023 the resident confirmed she did.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 12 April 2023. It said the following:
1. The landlord apologised for its failure to initially provide the resident with suitable accommodation.
2. The length of time to complete the repair and the resident’s property was “unreasonable.”
3. It was disappointed the resident’s property was not cleaned prior to her return.
4. The resident’s complaint had been flagged to “drive change” within the organisation. The landlord had also reviewed its procedures.
5. It would inspect the resident’s property and complete outstanding repairs within 4 weeks.
6. It offered the resident £1,350 compensation for:
  1. Time, trouble and inconvenience caused to her.
  2. A lack of communication and a clear plan of action in relation to alternative accommodation.
7. It would calculate any monies owed to the resident for “food, travel or laundry costs.”
At stage 2 the landlord increased the level of compensation. The amount was in line with a significant service failure amount stated in its compensation policy. The landlord said it would complete all repairs at the property. It also said it would learn from the case. These were appropriate responses by the landlord. Its acknowledgement of learning aligned with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes.
The landlord initially told the resident breakfast would not be provided at the hotel due to covid restrictions. Internal emails on 14 April 2023 show it decided it would not pay the resident any further money calculated for the cost of breakfast at the hotel during her decant. The landlord did also not pay the resident any money in respect of travel or laundry costs.
The landlord’s decant policy states that a food allowance payment can be made to resident at £15 per person per day when there are no cooking facilities. During the 11 months of being decanted the resident was without cooking facilities for only around 10 days. There is no evidence to show the resident paid for her and her family to have breakfast at the hotels. The landlord paid a daily food allowance to the resident despite her having access to cooking facilities for the majority of the decant. This meant the landlord went beyond what was set out in its decant policy. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to decide not to pay the resident the cost of breakfast during the time away from her property.
The resident said the £106 utility bill was generated by the landlord. As per the landlord’s decant policy it does not refund utility costs incurred through repairs. However, the landlord did not update the resident on the calculation of utility bill, travel or breakfast costs despite saying in its stage 2 response that it would. This was not reasonable.
In its stage 2 response the landlord failed to identify why no alternative to the hotel accommodation had been offered to the resident during the 11 months she was unable to return to her property. It also failed to investigate why the resident’s property was not cleaned prior to allowing them to return home. This lack of investigation caused the resident distress.
The resident moved to a new property on 10 September 2023. In her correspondence with this Service the resident said she wanted the compensation offered to be increased to include approximately £13,000 for breakfast costs and to take into account the energy bill during the time they were decanted.
In summary, the landlord took the following appropriate action:
1. As per the decant policy it:
  1. Decanted the resident whilst her property was inhabitable.
  2. Paid the resident and her family a daily food allowance of £60 during the decant. This was despite them having access to kitchen facilities.
  3. Arranged for the resident’s belongings to be stored.
2. It signposted the resident on multiple occasions to make a claim for personal injury and for missing or broken items.
However, the resident and her family were unable to live in their property for around 11 months whilst waiting for the landlord to complete repairs. The failings by the landlord included:
1. A lack of communication with the resident regarding the repairs or any alternative accommodation options.
2. The length of time the repairs took to complete, and the resident was decanted for. There was also a lack of investigation into why it took 9 months longer than the timeframe stated in the repairs policy.
3. The landlord did not consider the resident and her husband’s disability and provide support accordingly.
4. A lack of investigation into why the anti-slip flooring was not replaced in the bathroom.
5. Despite damage from a sewage leak the property was not professionally cleaned. The landlord acknowledged this failing but did not consider compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident who said they had to clean it themselves.
6. It did not communicate to the resident the conclusions of calculating the monies owed for food, travel and laundry.
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. The £1,350 compensation offered for the resident’s inconvenience went some way to put things right for the resident. However, the failings listed above, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident leads to a determination of maladministration by the landlord.
We have made an order for further compensation of £600. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right. Also, when a failure of the landlord had a significant physical and emotional impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident complained to the landlord on 26 August 2022. The landlord replied on 2 December 2022. The landlord should have responded within 10 working days in line with its complaints policy; however, there was a delay of 12 weeks. That was not appropriate. The landlord apologised for the delay, but did not offer compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint on 10 January 2023. The landlord replied at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 12 April 2023. The landlord should have responded within 20 working days. This was a delay of over 9 weeks which was not appropriate. In the stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the delay. It awarded £250 compensation for its handling of the associated complaint. This was in line with a finding of maladministration within the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure that has adversely affected the resident.
The landlord’s offer of £250 compensation for its handling of the associated complaint leads to a determination of reasonable redress. This means the landlord’s action for the failing to put things right for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property and the decant of the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers the landlord has made satisfactory redress to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this resolves the complaint with respect to its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord must take the following action and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to us:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings outlined above.
2. Pay the resident £1,950 for the landlord’s handling of repairs and the decant of the resident’s property. The landlord may deduct the sum of £1,350 previously offered if it can show this has already been paid to the resident. It should pay the compensation directly to the resident.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider:
1. An internal action plan to ensure its decant policy is followed for residents in the future.
2. Sending information to the resident about how she might make a claim on its public liability insurance.
The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making the above payment to the resident.