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

Peabody Trust (202317769)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317769

Peabody Trust

30 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows in the property.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident had an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which began in November 2019. The property is described as a 1-bedroom first floor flat.
  2. The resident initially contacted the landlord about her windows on 11 February 2022. The landlord attended on 15 June 2022 but was unable to return to carry out works that day. The resident complained on 17 June 2022 about the delays in attending and resolving the repair to the window. The landlord scheduled an appointment for 22 June 2022 but the resident cancelled this as it was not convenient.
  3. The landlord scheduled another appointment for 2 August 2022 but the resident was not in. It made several attempts to contact the resident by email and phone to reschedule the appointment. The resident responded on 16 August 2022. She said she would contact the landlord to re-arrange the appointment.
  4. The landlord’s repair records indicate works were carried out to the windows on 16 January 2023. It noted that all gaps were closed. The resident contacted the landlord in January 2023 and reported that the windows had gaps and were draughty. The resident raised a formal complaint on 30 January 2023. She said her gas bills had increased. She asked the landlord to change the windows. The landlord scheduled a heat loss survey (HLS) on 27 February 2023.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 14 March 2023. It said based on the stock condition survey previously carried out the windows were due for replacement in 2026. The landlord said it would raise repairs to resolve any issues identified from the HLS. The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 30 June 2023. She said the windows were not adequate as she had experienced an increase in her energy bills and could not wait 3 years for the window replacement.
  6. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 28 July 2023. It said it failed to provide the resident feedback on the HLS, and the survey did not include an assessment of the condition of the windows. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused and assured the resident that it would schedule an inspection of the windows within 20 working days. It offered the resident £350 for the time and trouble and for failures identified in its complaint handling.
  7. The resident referred the complaint to us on 13 September 2023. She said the landlord should replace the windows or offer compensation to cover the additional charges incurred for heating.

Events after the complaints process was exhausted.

  1. The resident asked the landlord on 31 July 2023 why it did not respond to her request for compensation to cover additional costs incurred for heating. The landlord responded on 1 August 2023 that it would wait for a report on the condition of the windows and provide a follow up response.
  2. The landlord inspected the windows on 1 November 2023. Its contractors reported on 9 November 2023 that the windows, frames, and sash panels were rotten and not repairable.
  3. The resident advised us in a telephone call on 22 January 2025 that she moved out of the property in November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This Service notes the resident’s comments regarding her health and the impact caused by the delays during her complaints. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causations of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We will consider distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused due to the situation reported by the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows in the property.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy provides a 28-day timescale for non-urgent repairs. The landlord did not dispute there was a delay in investigating the resident’s concerns about the windows in the property. The resident initially reported concerns about the condition of the windows to the landlord in February 2022. However, the landlord did not attend until 15 June 2022 which led to a complaint from the resident on 17 June 2022.
  2. The landlord did not adhere to the timescales set out in its policy. This would have caused the resident time and trouble. The resident complained that an operative attended but they did not return to carry out the repairs. The landlord explained that the operative’s van broke down and it rescheduled the appointment for 22 June 2022. The resident requested another appointment for personal reasons, so it was rescheduled for 2 August 2022.
  3. As she wanted an earlier appointment, the contractors telephoned her on 23 June 2022 because they had a cancellation, but they were not able to reach her. The landlord followed up its contact by email on 27 June 2022. It said the contractors had tried to reach her earlier and it did not have any further appointments until 2 August 2022 (as scheduled). The resident expressed dissatisfaction regarding this and requested compensation for the delay and missed appointments.
  4. In its email to the resident on 7 July 2022 the landlord acknowledged there had been some delays but explained it had tried to offer an earlier appointment. It said it would offer the resident compensation once full repairs had been completed. The landlord attended the appointment on 2 August 2022, but the resident was not in. It tried to contact the resident between 4 and 9 August to find out the reason for the failed access.
  5. The resident apologised for the delay in responding and explained that she had been tending to personal matters. She said she would re-schedule the appointment later. We have not seen evidence that she pursued the matter until January 2023. While the Ombudsman notes that there were some delays initially, the landlord acknowledged this and tried to put things right. This was reasonable.
  6. It is not clear what occurred between August and December 2022 from the information available to us. However, the landlord’s repairs log shows that it attended on or around 16 January 2023 and carried out some repairs to the window. It noted that the gaps had all been closed. The resident’s stage 1 complaint to the landlord suggests the issue remained unresolved for her as she raised further concerns. She said the operative who attended confirmed the windows had gaps and they gave her an electric heater.
  7. The records provided by the landlord do not fully account for the events that occurred in January 2023. Therefore, we have not been able to confirm if any follow-on works were agreed when it visited in January 2023. Also, we have not been able to determine if the landlord kept to its promise to offer compensation to the resident as previously stated. While we have not been able to ascertain the outcome of any inspections completed in January 2023, we are certain that the landlord was notified of the cold conditions in the flat.
  8. The resident escalated her concerns on 25 January 2023 and asked to speak to a manager in the repairs team. In her complaint to the landlord on 30 January 2023 she reported that she had incurred additional costs in her gas bills as heat was escaping through the faulty windows. She said she had asthma as a child, but the symptoms returned due to the draughty windows. This was a new concern not previously raised in 2022.
  9. The landlord and the resident communicated in several emails in February 2023. It scheduled a HLS for 27 February 2023. It also suggested measures such as thermal window film, but the resident said this would not work due to the gaps in the windows. The actions taken by the landlord at this stage were appropriate. Although it had exceeded the 28-day timescale for repairs, it managed the resident’s expectations.
  10. The landlord advised the resident through its stage 1 response on 14 March 2023 that the windows were not due for replacement until 2026. It said this was based on the outcome of the stock condition survey previously carried out. It said any recommendations for repairs in the HLS would be followed up. While the landlord carried out the HLS as scheduled, it did not update the resident on its findings. This was unreasonable.
  11. The resident continued to experience delays and on 30 June 2023 asked the landlord to investigate her complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. At this stage the resident had waited 6 months (from January to June 2023) but a resolution remained outstanding. This is not in line with the timescales published in the landlord’s repairs policy.
  12. The landlord apologised through its stage 2 response on 28 July 2023. It said:
    1. It did not provide feedback to the resident on the HLS.
    2. The radiators in the property were found to be efficient apart from the 1 in the lounge. Recommendations were made for the radiator to be upgraded but it failed to follow this up.
    3. The HLS focussed on the effectiveness of the heating and failed to assess the windows.
  13. The landlord acknowledged that it should have communicated better with the resident and assured her that a surveyor would assess the windows within 20 working days. It said it had shared feedback with the relevant staff to improve customer satisfaction. The landlord offered £250 to acknowledge the time and trouble and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord accepted there was a service failure and sought to put things right for the resident. This demonstrates some learning in the handling of the case.
  14. Despite the landlord’s assurances the resident experienced further delays as the inspection was not carried out until 1 November 2023. The landlord has not provided an explanation for this. The resident told us that she moved out of the property in the same month and the landlord has since replaced the windows. Overall, the resident incurred time, trouble, and inconvenience pursuing her reports about the windows.
  15. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider the severity of the time and trouble, and inconvenience experienced and whether it could have prevented this. It would also take account of any vulnerabilities where it was reasonably aware. It would consider offers between £451 to a maximum of £650 where a resident has incurred extensive disruption. The resident waited approximately 11 months for the landlord to inspect her windows and decide if repairs or replacement were required. This was not in line with its 28-days timescales for non-urgent repairs.
  16. During this time, she reported that her gas bills had increased, and the cold conditions in the flat had adversely affected her health. She informed the landlord in January 2023 that she had experienced chest tightening due to the draughty windows, but could not afford to keep the property at a temperature of more than 16 degrees. She said this was unsafe for her. The landlord did not adhere to its equality, diversity, and inclusion statement to carry out repairs as a higher priority where the resident is vulnerable. This is not appropriate.
  17. The landlord has offered some redress through its apology and offered £250 compensation. However, we have determined that this did not reflect the overall distress, inconvenience and time and trouble in line with its policy. Due to the above there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

  1. The resident initially complained about the window repairs on 17 June 2022. Although the landlord communicated with her in several emails to reschedule an appointment, it failed to provide a formal response to the complaint. The landlord’s policy states that follow-ups on a service request, such as a missed appointment, can often be resolved ‘there and then’ with an apology, and by providing another appointment. It said this may not need to be recorded in its complaints system.
  2. The policy states that if further issues are needed to resolve the matter, or if the resident requests it, the issue will be logged as a complaint. As the resident requested compensation and the landlord assured her that it would follow up, the appropriate step would be to raise the complaint and provide a formal response to her. The landlord failed to fully address this issue which left the resident with no choice than to raise another complaint on 30 January 2023.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint was delayed. According to its complaints policy it would aim to respond within 10 working days or notify the resident of any delays where anticipated. The resident raised the complaint on 30 January 2023 but the landlord responded on 14 March 2023 (31 working days later). We have not seen evidence that it notified the resident of the delays as stated in its policy. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its response or apologise for it. This is not appropriate.
  4. The landlord demonstrated some learning from its earlier errors. It responded to the stage 2 complaint within the timescales in its complaints policy. It also apologised for the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint and acknowledged it failed to provide feedback on the HLS through its response. The landlord offered the resident £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience to the resident for its handling of the complaint. The landlord’s offer was in line with its compensation policy, but it failed to address all the points raised by the resident.
  5. Our complaint handling code (the Code) states that landlord must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. The resident contacted the landlord after its stage 2 response (on 31 August 2023) and asked why it did not comment on the additional expenses she said she had incurred. The landlord responded on 1 August 2023 that it would wait for the outcome of the survey and send a follow up response.
  6. However, we have not seen from the evidence that it provided any further updates or responses after this date. This would have caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the matter with the Ombudsman. It is for this reason that we found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints. We have made an order to address this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should carry out the following orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident the sum of £750 broken down as:
      1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about the windows.
      2. £100 for the time and trouble to the resident for the failures in its handling of the complaint.
      3. £350 previously offered if it has not yet been paid to the resident.
    2. The landlord should share this decision with the relevant staff and reinforce the importance of following its policy when dealing with complaints.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss her concerns about additional expenses incurred on her gas bills during the relevant period. It should consider whether any further compensation should be awarded to the resident and respond to the resident in writing. A copy of the response should be provided to this Service.